A newspaper fit for burning.
September 18, 2016 9:19 AM Subscribe
Washington Post Makes History: First Paper to Call for Prosecution of its own Source (After Accepting Pulitzer).
and certain offensive cyber operations in China.
Ok, have to admit I hadn't heard about this one...so the NSA was picking a war with a superpower without any oversight whatsoever (can I get double italics on that last bit?) and Snowden is the bad guy? WTeverlivingF?
posted by sexyrobot at 9:36 AM on September 18, 2016 [24 favorites]
Ok, have to admit I hadn't heard about this one...so the NSA was picking a war with a superpower without any oversight whatsoever (can I get double italics on that last bit?) and Snowden is the bad guy? WTeverlivingF?
posted by sexyrobot at 9:36 AM on September 18, 2016 [24 favorites]
Ugh.
posted by chapps at 9:36 AM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by chapps at 9:36 AM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Technically it's Jeff Bezos, not Amazon. Hairsplitting, but we should be correct.
That said, I think WaPo's editorial board has a history of taking some lousy positions. I don't think you can pin this one on Bezos.
posted by pmurray63 at 9:38 AM on September 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
That said, I think WaPo's editorial board has a history of taking some lousy positions. I don't think you can pin this one on Bezos.
posted by pmurray63 at 9:38 AM on September 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
without any oversight whatsoever
Do we know it wasn't subject to oversight?
posted by jpe at 9:41 AM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Do we know it wasn't subject to oversight?
posted by jpe at 9:41 AM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
I agree with them. I think he's clearly a hero but also a traitor. We live in complicated times.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 9:49 AM on September 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 9:49 AM on September 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
As has been amply documented, and as all newspapers involved in this reporting (including the Post) have made clear, Snowden himself played no role in deciding which of these programs would be exposed (beyond providing the materials to newspapers in the first place). He did not trust himself to make those journalistic determinations, and so he left it to the newspapers to decide which revelations would and would not serve the public interest. If a program ended up being revealed, one can argue that Snowden bears some responsibility (because he provided the documents in the first place), but the ultimate responsibility lies with the editors of the paper that made the choice to reveal it, presumably because they concluded that the public interest was served by doing so.
I just have no words for this whole thing. Unbelievable
posted by gt2 at 9:52 AM on September 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
I just have no words for this whole thing. Unbelievable
posted by gt2 at 9:52 AM on September 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
PRISM may have been made legal by a US court, but the Post should remember that we foreign nationals who may be affected by PRISM are not bound by US laws. We may even have the audacity to consider some of those US laws unethical and worthy of public contempt.
posted by scruss at 10:00 AM on September 18, 2016 [44 favorites]
posted by scruss at 10:00 AM on September 18, 2016 [44 favorites]
I think Snowden performed an incredibly valuable public service by giving the documents to the reporters. He enabled them to expose a lot of shady shit that was going on that was clearly overreach and illegal. But he also sort of made his own bed by doing so, and I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to expect him to have to live the rest of his life in hiding. Maybe he'll get a pardon someday, but I am not counting on it. As someone said earlier in this comment thread, we live in complicated times.
posted by hippybear at 10:01 AM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 10:01 AM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
hippybear: "But he also sort of made his own bed by doing so"
He's a hero, but it will take a few centuries for us to realize that, and that's only if others continue to follow in his footsteps.
posted by chavenet at 10:06 AM on September 18, 2016 [23 favorites]
He's a hero, but it will take a few centuries for us to realize that, and that's only if others continue to follow in his footsteps.
posted by chavenet at 10:06 AM on September 18, 2016 [23 favorites]
Nasty hypocrites. At least future whistleblowers will know not to trust The Washington Post.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 10:09 AM on September 18, 2016 [24 favorites]
posted by Foci for Analysis at 10:09 AM on September 18, 2016 [24 favorites]
Do we know it wasn't subject to oversight?
In a democracy, if we can't know, it's not oversight.
posted by enn at 10:09 AM on September 18, 2016 [61 favorites]
In a democracy, if we can't know, it's not oversight.
posted by enn at 10:09 AM on September 18, 2016 [61 favorites]
I agree with them. I think he's clearly a hero but also a traitor. We live in complicated times.
Bullshit. It's no more complicated than Daniel Ellsberg or Mark Felt. It's not that the times are more complicated, it's that our institutions are less willing to call out evil hiding behind the guise of law and order.
posted by enn at 10:12 AM on September 18, 2016 [95 favorites]
Bullshit. It's no more complicated than Daniel Ellsberg or Mark Felt. It's not that the times are more complicated, it's that our institutions are less willing to call out evil hiding behind the guise of law and order.
posted by enn at 10:12 AM on September 18, 2016 [95 favorites]
I agree with them. I think he's clearly a hero but also a traitor. We live in complicated times.
It actually isn't complicated at all - it's possible to do the right thing (I believe he did) and be guilty of treason (he is, according to the laws of the country he was in when he did what he did).
The question of his heroism is similarly uncomplicated - he was aware of the possibility - no, the inevitability - of being hunted for the rest of his life, and he decided that was less important than the truth.
I hope like hell I can make the decision he did if I'm faced with a similar choice, but I don't know if I would. That humbles the fuck out of me.
posted by Mooski at 10:14 AM on September 18, 2016 [59 favorites]
It actually isn't complicated at all - it's possible to do the right thing (I believe he did) and be guilty of treason (he is, according to the laws of the country he was in when he did what he did).
The question of his heroism is similarly uncomplicated - he was aware of the possibility - no, the inevitability - of being hunted for the rest of his life, and he decided that was less important than the truth.
I hope like hell I can make the decision he did if I'm faced with a similar choice, but I don't know if I would. That humbles the fuck out of me.
posted by Mooski at 10:14 AM on September 18, 2016 [59 favorites]
WaPo's editorial board has had risibly bad opinions for far longer than the paper has been owned by Bezos, often at odds with the tenor of the paper's own reporting.
posted by silby at 10:16 AM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by silby at 10:16 AM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
and be guilty of treason (he is, according to the laws of the country he was in when he did what he did).
If we're going to get all by-the-legal-definition, doesn't he need to be tried first before he is guilty of anything?
posted by indubitable at 10:16 AM on September 18, 2016 [17 favorites]
If we're going to get all by-the-legal-definition, doesn't he need to be tried first before he is guilty of anything?
posted by indubitable at 10:16 AM on September 18, 2016 [17 favorites]
if we're going to get all by-the-legal-definition, doesn't he need to be tried first before he is guilty of anything?
Indubitably.
posted by deadaluspark at 10:25 AM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Indubitably.
posted by deadaluspark at 10:25 AM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
If we're going to get all by-the-legal-definition, doesn't he need to be tried first before he is guilty of anything?
True enough, though since the facts aren't in dispute (even by the accused), I would imagine a guilty verdict would follow trial like a cart follows a horse. Unless, of course, jury nullification could be managed, and oh my GOODNESS what I would give to be on that jury.
posted by Mooski at 10:25 AM on September 18, 2016
True enough, though since the facts aren't in dispute (even by the accused), I would imagine a guilty verdict would follow trial like a cart follows a horse. Unless, of course, jury nullification could be managed, and oh my GOODNESS what I would give to be on that jury.
posted by Mooski at 10:25 AM on September 18, 2016
No specific harm, actual or attempted, to any individual American was ever shown to have resulted from the NSA telephone metadata program Mr. Snowden brought to light. In contrast, his revelations about the agency’s international operations disrupted lawful intelligence-gathering, causing possibly “tremendous damage” to national security.
The funny thing about these two sentences is that you can rewrite them just as truthfully as follows:
No specific harm, actual or attempted, to any individual American was ever shown to have resulted from his revelations. In contrast, the NSA telephone metadata program caused possibly “tremendous damage” to individual liberties.
In short, the different burdens of "specific harm" and "possible damage" are selectively applied to justify the position that people should be transparent to the government while the government should not be transparent to the people.
posted by splitpeasoup at 10:32 AM on September 18, 2016 [79 favorites]
The funny thing about these two sentences is that you can rewrite them just as truthfully as follows:
No specific harm, actual or attempted, to any individual American was ever shown to have resulted from his revelations. In contrast, the NSA telephone metadata program caused possibly “tremendous damage” to individual liberties.
In short, the different burdens of "specific harm" and "possible damage" are selectively applied to justify the position that people should be transparent to the government while the government should not be transparent to the people.
posted by splitpeasoup at 10:32 AM on September 18, 2016 [79 favorites]
...we live in complicated times.
I thought pardons were all about finding justice in cases that were too complicated for the system to deal with effectively.
I would expect "complicated times" to require more pardons rather than fewer.
posted by Western Infidels at 10:39 AM on September 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
I thought pardons were all about finding justice in cases that were too complicated for the system to deal with effectively.
I would expect "complicated times" to require more pardons rather than fewer.
posted by Western Infidels at 10:39 AM on September 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
Ok, have to admit I hadn't heard about this one...so the NSA was picking a war with a superpower without any oversight whatsoever (can I get double italics on that last bit?) and Snowden is the bad guy? WTeverlivingF?
sexyrobot
It's literally the NSA's job to engage in those kind of operations and conduct espionage, as it is the job of their counterparts in China, Russia, and elsewhere to do the same. It's almost disingenuous to pretend that this is some kind of unprovoked action.
There is a long, ongoing struggle in the digital realm among the major nations of the world, and the NSA's legitimate purpose is engaging in it.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:44 AM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
sexyrobot
It's literally the NSA's job to engage in those kind of operations and conduct espionage, as it is the job of their counterparts in China, Russia, and elsewhere to do the same. It's almost disingenuous to pretend that this is some kind of unprovoked action.
There is a long, ongoing struggle in the digital realm among the major nations of the world, and the NSA's legitimate purpose is engaging in it.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:44 AM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
[civil disobedience] practitioners have always been willing to go to jail for their beliefs.
What a fucking lie. Have these jokers never even heard of all the conscientious objectors still claiming refugee status in Canada, for a single current example that you can read about in the newspaper if you are a little bit interested in current affairs?
posted by the agents of KAOS at 10:46 AM on September 18, 2016
What a fucking lie. Have these jokers never even heard of all the conscientious objectors still claiming refugee status in Canada, for a single current example that you can read about in the newspaper if you are a little bit interested in current affairs?
posted by the agents of KAOS at 10:46 AM on September 18, 2016
I agree with them. I think he's clearly a hero but also a traitor. We live in complicated times.
I don't know if I'll ever have a firm opinion on this, because I don't believe we're ever going to get the clear truth of the matter. The government has a vested interest in making Snowden look as bad as possible, and they're clearly not above lying about all this stuff. This is not your ordinary criminal case (which is often murky enough). I don't know I'll ever be able to believe either side's account of his motives and his actions.
The only thing I can say for sure is after the mockery our intelligence services and our government have made of the justice system and whistleblowing in the last 15 years, I can't blame Snowden for not coming home to face trial. Not after the abuse Chelsea Manning suffered and the way the US has basically shrugged and said some people at Gitmo will never get a trial. I don't blame Snowden for not expecting a fair trial. I wouldn't blame him for not believing he'll ever even get a trial at all after what has been done to others. Not one bit.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:53 AM on September 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
I don't know if I'll ever have a firm opinion on this, because I don't believe we're ever going to get the clear truth of the matter. The government has a vested interest in making Snowden look as bad as possible, and they're clearly not above lying about all this stuff. This is not your ordinary criminal case (which is often murky enough). I don't know I'll ever be able to believe either side's account of his motives and his actions.
The only thing I can say for sure is after the mockery our intelligence services and our government have made of the justice system and whistleblowing in the last 15 years, I can't blame Snowden for not coming home to face trial. Not after the abuse Chelsea Manning suffered and the way the US has basically shrugged and said some people at Gitmo will never get a trial. I don't blame Snowden for not expecting a fair trial. I wouldn't blame him for not believing he'll ever even get a trial at all after what has been done to others. Not one bit.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:53 AM on September 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
I agree with them. I think he's clearly a hero but also a traitor
I think that's a fair enough belief to hold. My question is what, then, do we call the Washington Post who made use of his heroism to chase their own glory and recognition, and once that was done, point out that he is also traitor and demand he be punished? I mean, I would go with mendacious self-serving assholes, but these are complicated times.
Perhaps we should follow the example of Stannis Baratheon from Game of Thrones, who gave a knighthood to the man who smuggled him the supplies necessary to survive a siege and then cut off his fingers as punishment for smuggling. If the good doesn't wash out the bad, then perhaps we should strip the Post of their Pulitzer since there should be no reward for them doing their journalistic duty while at the same time benefiting from the work of traitor?
posted by nubs at 10:54 AM on September 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
I think that's a fair enough belief to hold. My question is what, then, do we call the Washington Post who made use of his heroism to chase their own glory and recognition, and once that was done, point out that he is also traitor and demand he be punished? I mean, I would go with mendacious self-serving assholes, but these are complicated times.
Perhaps we should follow the example of Stannis Baratheon from Game of Thrones, who gave a knighthood to the man who smuggled him the supplies necessary to survive a siege and then cut off his fingers as punishment for smuggling. If the good doesn't wash out the bad, then perhaps we should strip the Post of their Pulitzer since there should be no reward for them doing their journalistic duty while at the same time benefiting from the work of traitor?
posted by nubs at 10:54 AM on September 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
I would imagine a guilty verdict would follow trial like a cart follows a horse. Unless, of course, jury nullification could be managed
Jury nullification kinda requires a fair trial and we already know Snowden would not be given a fair trial. It sounds like jurors would (best case scenario) not even know about the whistleblowing, so not know of the reason to nullify. Because... complicated times?
posted by anonymisc at 11:14 AM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Jury nullification kinda requires a fair trial and we already know Snowden would not be given a fair trial. It sounds like jurors would (best case scenario) not even know about the whistleblowing, so not know of the reason to nullify. Because... complicated times?
posted by anonymisc at 11:14 AM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
perhaps we should strip the Post of their Pulitzer...
Oh, thank heavens. I thought you were advocating cutting off the editorial board's fingers.
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:18 AM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Oh, thank heavens. I thought you were advocating cutting off the editorial board's fingers.
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:18 AM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
METAFILTER: I don't know if I'll ever have a firm opinion on this, because I don't believe we're ever going to get the clear truth of the matter.
posted by philip-random at 11:20 AM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by philip-random at 11:20 AM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
The Espionage Act is the key thing. Snowdon has said he's happy to stand trial, but only if he can present his case. The Espionage Act prevents him from doing so.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:21 AM on September 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:21 AM on September 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
"Listen, you keep lionizing this fucking guy and you will never get another inside photograph of the White House garden again, at least keep up appearances, ok?"
posted by benzenedream at 11:21 AM on September 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by benzenedream at 11:21 AM on September 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
we already know Snowden would not be given a fair trial.
Of course he would, and Mooski is entirely correct: as the facts are undisputed, a fair trial would result in a guilty verdict.
It sounds like jurors would (best case scenario) not even know about the whistleblowing.
Unless "whistleblowing" is an affirmative defense to charges under the Espionage Act or other charges Snowden may face, it is irrelevant what Snowden's intent in committing the acts were, or whether the jury knows about them.
From your linked article:
The Espionage Act is the key thing. Snowdon has said he's happy to stand trial, but only if he can present his case. The Espionage Act prevents him from doing so.
No, it doesn't. The crime is knowingly releasing classified information. Nothing about the Espionage Act prevents him from presenting his case in his defense, but the problem is he has no case. He, by his own admission, did knowingly release classified information.
People don't want a "fair trial", they want Snowden to be pardoned for his crimes because they feel he was justified in doing what he did. A fair trial means a guilty verdict, because he unquestionably broke the law.
posted by Sangermaine at 11:26 AM on September 18, 2016 [16 favorites]
Of course he would, and Mooski is entirely correct: as the facts are undisputed, a fair trial would result in a guilty verdict.
It sounds like jurors would (best case scenario) not even know about the whistleblowing.
Unless "whistleblowing" is an affirmative defense to charges under the Espionage Act or other charges Snowden may face, it is irrelevant what Snowden's intent in committing the acts were, or whether the jury knows about them.
From your linked article:
Prosecutors in recent cases have convinced courts that the intent of the leaker, the value of leaks to the public, and the lack of harm caused by the leaks are irrelevant—and are therefore inadmissible in court.Prosecutors are convincing the courts of this because the intent of the leaker and the value of the leaks to the public aren't defenses to the charges, and I'm guessing harm isn't an element of the crime.
The Espionage Act is the key thing. Snowdon has said he's happy to stand trial, but only if he can present his case. The Espionage Act prevents him from doing so.
No, it doesn't. The crime is knowingly releasing classified information. Nothing about the Espionage Act prevents him from presenting his case in his defense, but the problem is he has no case. He, by his own admission, did knowingly release classified information.
People don't want a "fair trial", they want Snowden to be pardoned for his crimes because they feel he was justified in doing what he did. A fair trial means a guilty verdict, because he unquestionably broke the law.
posted by Sangermaine at 11:26 AM on September 18, 2016 [16 favorites]
When people use words like "traitor" as though that is in itself a condemnation, in itself a negative thing--I am confused by it. It really drives home how little I understand having loyalty to a nation, to a government, instead of having loyalty to ideals that you think are important.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 11:26 AM on September 18, 2016 [36 favorites]
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 11:26 AM on September 18, 2016 [36 favorites]
It really drives home how little I understand having loyalty to a nation, to a government, instead of having loyalty to ideals that you think are important.
Well, it's kinda nice to have a framework of laws agreed to by a large number of people when some other asshole decides that his ideals outweigh yours.
posted by Etrigan at 11:30 AM on September 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
Well, it's kinda nice to have a framework of laws agreed to by a large number of people when some other asshole decides that his ideals outweigh yours.
posted by Etrigan at 11:30 AM on September 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
Well, it's kinda nice to have a framework of laws agreed to by a large number of people when some other asshole decides that his ideals outweigh yours.
The question in this particular case is that, just perhaps, an individual (perhaps an asshole, that is in the eye of the beholder) decided that his ideals aligned with those of the large number of people, while another group of people were taking actions in secret that went directly against the ideals of the large number of people, perhaps feeling justified that they were acting on behalf of the large group, and he's gotten in trouble for letting the large number of people know what the other group of people were doing in secret, because the other group of people aren't happy that their actions were made public.
posted by hippybear at 11:34 AM on September 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
The question in this particular case is that, just perhaps, an individual (perhaps an asshole, that is in the eye of the beholder) decided that his ideals aligned with those of the large number of people, while another group of people were taking actions in secret that went directly against the ideals of the large number of people, perhaps feeling justified that they were acting on behalf of the large group, and he's gotten in trouble for letting the large number of people know what the other group of people were doing in secret, because the other group of people aren't happy that their actions were made public.
posted by hippybear at 11:34 AM on September 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
Follow up: If anyone is interested here is the complaint filed against Snowden, alleging 3 crimes:
Theft of Government Property (18 U.S. Code § 641)
Unauthorized Communication of National Defense Information (18 U.S. Code § 793(d))
Willful Communication of Classified Communications Intelligence Information to an Unauthorized Person (18 U.S. Code § 798(a)(3))
There is no question that Snowden meets the elements for each of these crimes as, again, the facts are not in dispute. If there isn't some whistleblower protection statute that applies to this situation, then it's irrelevant at trial what Snowden intended to do by committing these crimes, or the value of their commission to the public.
posted by Sangermaine at 11:37 AM on September 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Theft of Government Property (18 U.S. Code § 641)
Unauthorized Communication of National Defense Information (18 U.S. Code § 793(d))
Willful Communication of Classified Communications Intelligence Information to an Unauthorized Person (18 U.S. Code § 798(a)(3))
There is no question that Snowden meets the elements for each of these crimes as, again, the facts are not in dispute. If there isn't some whistleblower protection statute that applies to this situation, then it's irrelevant at trial what Snowden intended to do by committing these crimes, or the value of their commission to the public.
posted by Sangermaine at 11:37 AM on September 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Because... complicated times?
Because it's standard for judges to exclude legally irrelevant evidence.
posted by jpe at 11:38 AM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Because it's standard for judges to exclude legally irrelevant evidence.
posted by jpe at 11:38 AM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I couldn't even read the second link because these arseholes were begging for money so desperately that they'd covered the text in pop-ups.
posted by Coda Tronca at 11:44 AM on September 18, 2016
posted by Coda Tronca at 11:44 AM on September 18, 2016
Coda Tronca: If your browser lets you use a "private browser window" or something similar, you can read the article that way.
posted by hippybear at 11:45 AM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by hippybear at 11:45 AM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
the fact that it's "legally irrelevant" generates a serious constitutional issue
No, there's no constitutional issue here. It's a policy matter.
posted by jpe at 11:50 AM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
No, there's no constitutional issue here. It's a policy matter.
posted by jpe at 11:50 AM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
the fact that it's "legally irrelevant" generates a serious constitutional issue
What issue, specifically?
posted by Sangermaine at 11:57 AM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
What issue, specifically?
posted by Sangermaine at 11:57 AM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is probably the best argument for jury nullification I've ever seen. Shame it would never happen because whatever jury he ended up with would be hand-picked to be as ignorant, both of Snowden's whole story and of the possibility of nullification, as possible.
I mean yeah, it's absolutely true that he's guilty, nobody disputes that. But it's not even a question of whether or not he could justify his actions, it's that he wouldn't even be allowed to try. He could say basically nothing in his own defense that wouldn't be ruled inadmissible by the judge. Whatever else you think of his actions, a trial in which the accused can't appropriately defend themselves is not a fair trial.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 11:58 AM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
I mean yeah, it's absolutely true that he's guilty, nobody disputes that. But it's not even a question of whether or not he could justify his actions, it's that he wouldn't even be allowed to try. He could say basically nothing in his own defense that wouldn't be ruled inadmissible by the judge. Whatever else you think of his actions, a trial in which the accused can't appropriately defend themselves is not a fair trial.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 11:58 AM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
A fair trial means a guilty verdict, because he unquestionably broke the law.
Jury nullification means that that isn't the case, but Snowden perhaps doesn't want to hang his freedom on that controversial doctrine.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:04 PM on September 18, 2016
Jury nullification means that that isn't the case, but Snowden perhaps doesn't want to hang his freedom on that controversial doctrine.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:04 PM on September 18, 2016
Well, it's kinda nice to have a framework of laws agreed to by a large number of people when some other asshole decides that his ideals outweigh yours.
This doesn't really help my confusion any. Believing that society is better off with a system of laws is not the same as having loyalty to a nation.
I am having trouble explaining the difference because they just have so little to do with each other. But, for example, you could disapprove of Edward Snowden's actions without being angry at him for "betraying" the country, and without thinking that "traitor" is an ipso facto condemnation.
And also, I don't know you well, but--I'm guessing that you don't believe that the law should always be followed, in all cases, but that is kind of what I am getting from your comment. Most civil disobedience is "some other asshole" deciding that his ideals outweigh the law, after all.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 12:11 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
This doesn't really help my confusion any. Believing that society is better off with a system of laws is not the same as having loyalty to a nation.
I am having trouble explaining the difference because they just have so little to do with each other. But, for example, you could disapprove of Edward Snowden's actions without being angry at him for "betraying" the country, and without thinking that "traitor" is an ipso facto condemnation.
And also, I don't know you well, but--I'm guessing that you don't believe that the law should always be followed, in all cases, but that is kind of what I am getting from your comment. Most civil disobedience is "some other asshole" deciding that his ideals outweigh the law, after all.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 12:11 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Snowden perhaps doesn't want to hang his freedom on that controversial doctrine.
That's exactly what he's asked for. He wants to present legally irrelevant evidence to persuade a jury not to apply the statute.
That's just what nullification is.
Whatever else you think of his actions, a trial in which the accused can't appropriately defend themselves is not a fair trial.
A trial in which someone doesn't have the facts to present a legally relevant defense is a trial in which the defendant is guilty. As is the case here.
posted by jpe at 12:11 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's exactly what he's asked for. He wants to present legally irrelevant evidence to persuade a jury not to apply the statute.
That's just what nullification is.
Whatever else you think of his actions, a trial in which the accused can't appropriately defend themselves is not a fair trial.
A trial in which someone doesn't have the facts to present a legally relevant defense is a trial in which the defendant is guilty. As is the case here.
posted by jpe at 12:11 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Whatever else you think of his actions, a trial in which the accused can't appropriately defend themselves is not a fair trial.
We're going in circles here because people don't seem to understand how the law or trials work.
Snowden is free to defend himself against the charges he's been given, which all revolve around knowingly appropriating and distributing classified information. He can present any defense he wants to those charges, but any defense involves showing why the elements of the charges don't apply (or trying to show an affirmative defense applies). Unfortunately, they clearly do. Anything else is irrelevant and is rightfully ruled out. Why he committed the crimes isn't relevant at trial, just whether he meets the elements of the crimes. If you're on trial for trafficking heroin, you're trying to dispute the elements of drug trafficking. Explaining that you had a very good reason to do so and asking the court to let you show them the heroin is useless if the prosecution can establish that you have indeed engaged in trafficking it.
What you and others want isn't a "fair trial", you want special extra-legal considerations to be brought into the mix. And that's fine, we have a mechanism for that: the pardon. The trial, however, is to determine whether the accused broke the law, which he by his own admission did.
posted by Sangermaine at 12:12 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
We're going in circles here because people don't seem to understand how the law or trials work.
Snowden is free to defend himself against the charges he's been given, which all revolve around knowingly appropriating and distributing classified information. He can present any defense he wants to those charges, but any defense involves showing why the elements of the charges don't apply (or trying to show an affirmative defense applies). Unfortunately, they clearly do. Anything else is irrelevant and is rightfully ruled out. Why he committed the crimes isn't relevant at trial, just whether he meets the elements of the crimes. If you're on trial for trafficking heroin, you're trying to dispute the elements of drug trafficking. Explaining that you had a very good reason to do so and asking the court to let you show them the heroin is useless if the prosecution can establish that you have indeed engaged in trafficking it.
What you and others want isn't a "fair trial", you want special extra-legal considerations to be brought into the mix. And that's fine, we have a mechanism for that: the pardon. The trial, however, is to determine whether the accused broke the law, which he by his own admission did.
posted by Sangermaine at 12:12 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Odd to get so riled up but mistaken by the fact that a newspaper uses material supplied to it and which the paper's editor believes newsworthy, but that the editorial position condemns the person who had somehow made that material get to various papers. It is always useful to distinguish between editorials and printed news items.
posted by Postroad at 12:15 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Postroad at 12:15 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
For a moment let's forget Snowden and agree that what ever NSA does informs our foreign policy and ultimately our military activity. If that's a given, what kind of result have we gotten for all the efforts of NSA. US Foreign policy has been undeniably bankrupt at least since the fiasco in Korea and has steadily gotten worse. We've now reached the point of perpetual war. Snowden, Ellsberg, Felt, et. al. have tried to inform the American public of the clockwork that made this gross incompetence possible.
Pardon Snowden he's a hero not a villain.
posted by shnarg at 12:17 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Pardon Snowden he's a hero not a villain.
posted by shnarg at 12:17 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Pretty sure the strict legal definition of a "fair trial", and what most laymen would consider to be a "fair trial", are not always the same thing. And yet it's those laymen who would ideally compose a jury of Snowden's peers.
Agreed that a pardon would be the better approach, but nullification (slim though those chances might be) would send a stronger message. A pardon means someone in power has been convinced to give this particular defendant a pass in this particular case, while nullification is a clear indication that the American people feel like the relevant laws need to change.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 12:18 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Agreed that a pardon would be the better approach, but nullification (slim though those chances might be) would send a stronger message. A pardon means someone in power has been convinced to give this particular defendant a pass in this particular case, while nullification is a clear indication that the American people feel like the relevant laws need to change.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 12:18 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why even bother with the pardon? Just give him the Petraeus deal.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 12:20 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 12:20 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
nullification is a clear indication that the American people feel like the relevant laws need to change.
Nullification is an abhorrent, anti-democratic concept used in the service of hypocrisy that is only a clear indication that the whims of the twelve people who happen to be on that jury have subverted the rule of law in that case.
posted by Sangermaine at 12:23 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Nullification is an abhorrent, anti-democratic concept used in the service of hypocrisy that is only a clear indication that the whims of the twelve people who happen to be on that jury have subverted the rule of law in that case.
posted by Sangermaine at 12:23 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Can Joe McCarthy be considered a whistle blower? No. Was he a traitor? No. But Wash PO jugged up his lies, tossed him under the bus, then in 96', published a clock/twice daily article.
Snowden has broken the law and did not follow the proper apparti for addressing these things to congress, the reps of the people which suggests he did not trust the people he posits to defend. James Bamford has done some excellent work about Snowden. I'm inclined to listen to him first then the governments postion.
As to pardons, the only way I see one is if he stands trial.
posted by clavdivs at 12:27 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Snowden has broken the law and did not follow the proper apparti for addressing these things to congress, the reps of the people which suggests he did not trust the people he posits to defend. James Bamford has done some excellent work about Snowden. I'm inclined to listen to him first then the governments postion.
As to pardons, the only way I see one is if he stands trial.
posted by clavdivs at 12:27 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is Snowden even seeking a presidential pardon or is that just something (misguided?) activists are calling for on his behalf? I haven't followed this story as closely as I should have, so I don't know Snowden's own justification for taking the actions that he has taken. But when *I* imagine justifying Snowden's actions, I imagine that he fundamentally rejects the power and authority of the United States of America, along the lines of how an average American citizen views a tinpot dictator. We wouldn't ask for a pardon from a tinpot dictator. We don't recognize his authority.
For me, someone who did what Snowden has done, and then refuses to face trial in an American court while accepting safe harbor from Vladimir Putin, is someone who is rejecting the rule of law as it exists in the United States. I'm glad that this is territory that someone is staking a claim to, but I don't think that person would be interested in a pardon from the United States President, and if they were interested, I'm not sure how to justify that interest in light of their other actions and positions.
posted by Kwine at 12:34 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
For me, someone who did what Snowden has done, and then refuses to face trial in an American court while accepting safe harbor from Vladimir Putin, is someone who is rejecting the rule of law as it exists in the United States. I'm glad that this is territory that someone is staking a claim to, but I don't think that person would be interested in a pardon from the United States President, and if they were interested, I'm not sure how to justify that interest in light of their other actions and positions.
posted by Kwine at 12:34 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Nullification is an abhorrent, anti-democratic concept used in the service of hypocrisy
ok but like for real
. . . that is how some people feel about the governmental actions you are defending, so maybe take it down a notch. jury nullification IS LEGAL. so does this democracy just suit you . . . sometimes? when you get to decide whether the rule of law is ethically appropriate?
posted by listen, lady at 12:41 PM on September 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
"we live in complicated times" We live in a time where millions of highly connected hands do not know what the other hand is doing; this is by design. Who will help the person that clearly demonstrates this as the normal situation, which allows every malfeasance? He is in ultimate violation of the No Talk Rule. This rule governs every covert activity, whether it is espionage, state craft, criminal activity, unethical experimentation, or torture, and too many other thinks to call to mind in between keystrokes.
posted by Oyéah at 12:41 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Oyéah at 12:41 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
jury nullification IS LEGAL
Sort of? There's no right to nullification, and judges will generally try to prevent it.
posted by jpe at 12:42 PM on September 18, 2016
Sort of? There's no right to nullification, and judges will generally try to prevent it.
posted by jpe at 12:42 PM on September 18, 2016
Sort of? There's no right to nullification,
not until a court rules there isn't. that doesn't make it not legal. TALKING ABOUT IT is the thing that has been made illegal.
posted by listen, lady at 12:45 PM on September 18, 2016
not until a court rules there isn't. that doesn't make it not legal. TALKING ABOUT IT is the thing that has been made illegal.
posted by listen, lady at 12:45 PM on September 18, 2016
Wait, it is legal. There's jurisprudence about it. Sparf v. U.S., 1895, and it is still active in that respect--it's also where the restraints come from.
posted by listen, lady at 12:47 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by listen, lady at 12:47 PM on September 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
>Nullification is an abhorrent, anti-democratic concept used in the service of hypocrisy that is only a clear indication that the whims of the twelve people who happen to be on that jury have subverted the rule of law in that case
I wish you hadn't said this, because up until now I had assumed you were arguing from a dispassionate legal perspective, but this is clearly opinion. However you might feel about it, jury nullification is a way for society to express their belief that a law is unfair. It's been used for good and for ill, but "anti-democratic" is a pretty impressive stretch for something that's ultimately about a group of representative citizens making a decision about how they feel they and their peers should be governed.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 12:48 PM on September 18, 2016 [20 favorites]
I wish you hadn't said this, because up until now I had assumed you were arguing from a dispassionate legal perspective, but this is clearly opinion. However you might feel about it, jury nullification is a way for society to express their belief that a law is unfair. It's been used for good and for ill, but "anti-democratic" is a pretty impressive stretch for something that's ultimately about a group of representative citizens making a decision about how they feel they and their peers should be governed.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 12:48 PM on September 18, 2016 [20 favorites]
I understand that: a jury can use whatever insane, wrong reasoning it wants to arrive at its factual determinations. The law says irrelevant evidence is to be excluded, though, and if a judge properly enforces that then the defendant has no recourse.
posted by jpe at 12:49 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by jpe at 12:49 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I understand that: a jury can use whatever insane, wrong reasoning it wants to arrive at its factual determinations. The law says irrelevant evidence is to be excluded, though, and if a judge properly enforces that then the defendant has no recourse.
This does not mean a ruling has superseded the 1895 assertion that there is a right to jury nullification. There is no such further jurisprudence. That mean's it's legal, not "sort of?" legal. You don't have to agree with it.
posted by listen, lady at 12:51 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
This does not mean a ruling has superseded the 1895 assertion that there is a right to jury nullification. There is no such further jurisprudence. That mean's it's legal, not "sort of?" legal. You don't have to agree with it.
posted by listen, lady at 12:51 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's been used for good and for ill, but "anti-democratic" is a pretty impressive stretch
It's a fairly standard objection and totally reasonable: 12 randomly selected people undoing the laws enacted through the democratic process is anti-democratic. People can certainly disagree with that, but it's a reasonable position.
posted by jpe at 12:51 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's a fairly standard objection and totally reasonable: 12 randomly selected people undoing the laws enacted through the democratic process is anti-democratic. People can certainly disagree with that, but it's a reasonable position.
posted by jpe at 12:51 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
undoing the laws enacted
they're not "undoing the laws." they exculpate single defendants. it doesn't ~change the law~ because that's . . . not how the legal system works.
posted by listen, lady at 12:54 PM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
they're not "undoing the laws." they exculpate single defendants. it doesn't ~change the law~ because that's . . . not how the legal system works.
posted by listen, lady at 12:54 PM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
This does not mean a ruling has superseded the 1895 assertion that there is a right to jury nullification
I just looked at the Wikipedia entry and didn't read the case, but it seems that that the case held that a judge isn't required to tell a jury that they can nullify. So it's a bad case for the nullification view.
It might clarify things to note that nullification is a power of the jury, not a right of the defendant.
posted by jpe at 12:55 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I just looked at the Wikipedia entry and didn't read the case, but it seems that that the case held that a judge isn't required to tell a jury that they can nullify. So it's a bad case for the nullification view.
It might clarify things to note that nullification is a power of the jury, not a right of the defendant.
posted by jpe at 12:55 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
they exculpate single defendants. it doesn't ~change the law~ because that's . . . not how the legal system works.
Nullification hit its high point in the Jim Crow south, where white jurors wouldn't convict white people of killing black people. When that is done systematically, I think it does undo the law (it nullifies the law, whence the term)
posted by jpe at 12:56 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Nullification hit its high point in the Jim Crow south, where white jurors wouldn't convict white people of killing black people. When that is done systematically, I think it does undo the law (it nullifies the law, whence the term)
posted by jpe at 12:56 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
I question the sincerity of Snowden's actions. He seems to have no trouble living in an authoritarian place like Russia. He doesn't seem to favor the kind of social democracy where government plays a constructive role in regulating the powerful. Instead he seems to favor a kind of libertarian world where the rich abd privileged classes such as white males are free to do as they please without regard for the needs of society and others.
His fears seem to be less about the actual injustices and instead about imagined tyrany against upper middle class white folks.
Finally what did his whistleblowing accomplish? Programs which operated under dubious legal authority have mostly now been authorized and in some cases expanded by congress. Revelations about Angela Merkle's cell phone, or programs to sneak backdoors into computer equipment going overseas disrupted what seem to be legitimate spy programs conducted to protect the security of the United States.
posted by humanfont at 1:04 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
His fears seem to be less about the actual injustices and instead about imagined tyrany against upper middle class white folks.
Finally what did his whistleblowing accomplish? Programs which operated under dubious legal authority have mostly now been authorized and in some cases expanded by congress. Revelations about Angela Merkle's cell phone, or programs to sneak backdoors into computer equipment going overseas disrupted what seem to be legitimate spy programs conducted to protect the security of the United States.
posted by humanfont at 1:04 PM on September 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Mod note: A few comments deleted. Please reel it back in, folks; hot topic but it should be one we can discuss here without going after each other.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:13 PM on September 18, 2016
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:13 PM on September 18, 2016
If everyone in government who had once broken some big law had to stand trial I'd have a good shot at a directorship somewhere in civil service.
But I don't, as the guys authorizing white phosphorous, burying sexual assault cases, outing agents abroad, and generally eroding any trust people have in their government and legal systems aren't subject to any continuing scrutiny.
Forme, it isn't that the laws are fucked, it's the people who are choosing when they're applied that's so broken about it.
posted by Slackermagee at 1:21 PM on September 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
But I don't, as the guys authorizing white phosphorous, burying sexual assault cases, outing agents abroad, and generally eroding any trust people have in their government and legal systems aren't subject to any continuing scrutiny.
Forme, it isn't that the laws are fucked, it's the people who are choosing when they're applied that's so broken about it.
posted by Slackermagee at 1:21 PM on September 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
while accepting safe harbor from Vladimir Putin
Snowden's US passport was revoked while he was on his way to Moscow en route to Ecuador. He had no choice but to stay in Russia or surrender to US authorities somehow. The US government chose to strand him in Russia.
posted by indubitable at 1:30 PM on September 18, 2016 [41 favorites]
Snowden's US passport was revoked while he was on his way to Moscow en route to Ecuador. He had no choice but to stay in Russia or surrender to US authorities somehow. The US government chose to strand him in Russia.
posted by indubitable at 1:30 PM on September 18, 2016 [41 favorites]
Why do I suspect that somebody on the WaPo editorial board sees Snowden being protected by Putin, who is openly aiding the Presidential campaign of Trump who they despise with the hate of a thousand fires (very justifiably) and connects dots that may not be there that Trump would be perfectly happy to pardon him, thus making it unacceptable? Logical fail.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:34 PM on September 18, 2016
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:34 PM on September 18, 2016
Nullification hit its high point in the Jim Crow south, where white jurors wouldn't convict white people of killing black people. When that is done systematically, I think it does undo the law (it nullifies the law, whence the term)
If you think that racism delegitimizes jury nullification, then you can't think that any single piece of the justice system or democracy at all is legitimate. You'll have to burn every gavel, robe, flag, and badge.
posted by fleacircus at 1:36 PM on September 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
If you think that racism delegitimizes jury nullification, then you can't think that any single piece of the justice system or democracy at all is legitimate. You'll have to burn every gavel, robe, flag, and badge.
posted by fleacircus at 1:36 PM on September 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
I don't know if I'll ever have a firm opinion on this, because I don't believe we're ever going to get the clear truth of the matter. The government has a vested interest in making Snowden look as bad as possible, and they're clearly not above lying about all this stuff. This is not your ordinary criminal case (which is often murky enough). I don't know I'll ever be able to believe either side's account of his motives and his actions.
Given that Snowden popped up in the news again recently, I finally got around to watching Citizenfour yesterday. Poitras ended up with some fairly candid footage of Snowden in Hong Kong. You can watch him explain his motives (not during the official interview parts of Poitras' filming; to folks who he specifically reached out to because he thought they would be sympathetic to him, to whom he has little incentive to dissemble), and make your own judgement. He talks about citizenship a lot. I found that quite interesting.
In the documentary, there is also a scene with Snowden's team of volunteer lawyers discussing the charges against him and possible defenses. They are quite limited, according to the lawyer speaking in the scene: due to the nature of the Espionage Act, apparently leaking documents that have been classified may be considered espionage if the government chooses to pursue such charges, regardless of whether the documents should have been classified or were classified improperly, regardless of whether the leak brings to light illegal actions committed by the government, regardless of the motivations of the person doing the leaking, whether or not they benefit from the leak in any way (financial or otherwise), regardless of who they leak the information to (eg. Congresspeople without proper security clearances would be just as bad as journalists, who are just as bad as foreign powers), etc. Basically, if I understood the explanation clearly, if someone in a position of power within the US government commits a crime and illegally classifies all evidence of their crime, and holds a position that you would have to go through in order to report the crime under relevant administrative procedures, then no matter how you bring the evidence of that crime to light, you could be charged under the Espionage Act. It sounds like a really terrible law.
Anyway, regardless of your opinion on Snowden and his actions, I found the film to be very good for providing a complete context, and would highly recommend it.
Snowden is free to defend himself against the charges he's been given, which all revolve around knowingly appropriating and distributing classified information. He can present any defense he wants to those charges, but any defense involves showing why the elements of the charges don't apply (or trying to show an affirmative defense applies). Unfortunately, they clearly do. Anything else is irrelevant and is rightfully ruled out. Why he committed the crimes isn't relevant at trial, just whether he meets the elements of the crimes. If you're on trial for trafficking heroin, you're trying to dispute the elements of drug trafficking. Explaining that you had a very good reason to do so and asking the court to let you show them the heroin is useless if the prosecution can establish that you have indeed engaged in trafficking it.
Unless you're on trial for rape, and then it's apparently totally acceptable to use character assassination of the (alleged, sure) victim rather than disputing the actual facts of the case.... While I can't speak to the case of the specific charges that Snowden faces, it doesn't seem to be the case that what is or is not legally allowed as a defense is always quite so clear cut as this. As with everything in law, what you can get away with depends on the judge and the relative skill level of the respective lawyers, among other factors.
posted by eviemath at 1:36 PM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
Given that Snowden popped up in the news again recently, I finally got around to watching Citizenfour yesterday. Poitras ended up with some fairly candid footage of Snowden in Hong Kong. You can watch him explain his motives (not during the official interview parts of Poitras' filming; to folks who he specifically reached out to because he thought they would be sympathetic to him, to whom he has little incentive to dissemble), and make your own judgement. He talks about citizenship a lot. I found that quite interesting.
In the documentary, there is also a scene with Snowden's team of volunteer lawyers discussing the charges against him and possible defenses. They are quite limited, according to the lawyer speaking in the scene: due to the nature of the Espionage Act, apparently leaking documents that have been classified may be considered espionage if the government chooses to pursue such charges, regardless of whether the documents should have been classified or were classified improperly, regardless of whether the leak brings to light illegal actions committed by the government, regardless of the motivations of the person doing the leaking, whether or not they benefit from the leak in any way (financial or otherwise), regardless of who they leak the information to (eg. Congresspeople without proper security clearances would be just as bad as journalists, who are just as bad as foreign powers), etc. Basically, if I understood the explanation clearly, if someone in a position of power within the US government commits a crime and illegally classifies all evidence of their crime, and holds a position that you would have to go through in order to report the crime under relevant administrative procedures, then no matter how you bring the evidence of that crime to light, you could be charged under the Espionage Act. It sounds like a really terrible law.
Anyway, regardless of your opinion on Snowden and his actions, I found the film to be very good for providing a complete context, and would highly recommend it.
Snowden is free to defend himself against the charges he's been given, which all revolve around knowingly appropriating and distributing classified information. He can present any defense he wants to those charges, but any defense involves showing why the elements of the charges don't apply (or trying to show an affirmative defense applies). Unfortunately, they clearly do. Anything else is irrelevant and is rightfully ruled out. Why he committed the crimes isn't relevant at trial, just whether he meets the elements of the crimes. If you're on trial for trafficking heroin, you're trying to dispute the elements of drug trafficking. Explaining that you had a very good reason to do so and asking the court to let you show them the heroin is useless if the prosecution can establish that you have indeed engaged in trafficking it.
Unless you're on trial for rape, and then it's apparently totally acceptable to use character assassination of the (alleged, sure) victim rather than disputing the actual facts of the case.... While I can't speak to the case of the specific charges that Snowden faces, it doesn't seem to be the case that what is or is not legally allowed as a defense is always quite so clear cut as this. As with everything in law, what you can get away with depends on the judge and the relative skill level of the respective lawyers, among other factors.
posted by eviemath at 1:36 PM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm not about to write a memo on the thing, so let me just throw out "narrowly tailored" and see if that gets us anywhere
Since there's no right at stake (see Sparf v US), that doesn't get us anywhere.
posted by jpe at 1:38 PM on September 18, 2016
Since there's no right at stake (see Sparf v US), that doesn't get us anywhere.
posted by jpe at 1:38 PM on September 18, 2016
It's a power of the jury - a jury can do it - but it's not a right of the defendant.
Extralegal is probably a good formulation.
posted by jpe at 1:42 PM on September 18, 2016
Extralegal is probably a good formulation.
posted by jpe at 1:42 PM on September 18, 2016
I'm not a lawyer but is it actually true that in the American court of law, intent and context are irrelevant to the process of framing a trial as well as the content of its proceedings? That's what it sounds like some commenters are trying to assert without backing it up. In a way it's these blank assertions that are symptomatic of ideology, too.
posted by polymodus at 1:44 PM on September 18, 2016
posted by polymodus at 1:44 PM on September 18, 2016
The complaints against Snowden were already outlined in this thread, here.
posted by hippybear at 1:55 PM on September 18, 2016
posted by hippybear at 1:55 PM on September 18, 2016
lol at people in this thread talking like we are still a free nation of laws.
posted by entropicamericana at 2:01 PM on September 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 2:01 PM on September 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
That's the point though. Nobody knows the hypothetical charges, because they are negotiated as a process through the judicial and more generally the state institutions. That's the framing problem.
And the talk upthread clearly is not about specific legal crimes. Read them again: it's about conservative comments conflating multiple senses (such as legalistic versus social notions) of "guilt", or "treason", or "crime", etc. in order to put forward logically inappropriate conclusions. This doublespeak and compartmentalisation causes a lot of the talking-past kind of interaction.
posted by polymodus at 2:02 PM on September 18, 2016
And the talk upthread clearly is not about specific legal crimes. Read them again: it's about conservative comments conflating multiple senses (such as legalistic versus social notions) of "guilt", or "treason", or "crime", etc. in order to put forward logically inappropriate conclusions. This doublespeak and compartmentalisation causes a lot of the talking-past kind of interaction.
posted by polymodus at 2:02 PM on September 18, 2016
State institutions? As in the charges are framed in the language of state law? Or The State.
posted by clavdivs at 2:25 PM on September 18, 2016
posted by clavdivs at 2:25 PM on September 18, 2016
Jury nullification is not extralegal; it's a right of juries enshrined in post 1600's Common Law, as opposed to previous circumstances where the jury could be held in contempt for finding to the court's displeasure. The almost universal practice of lying to juries about their rights is now the norm in the US, but those instructions are still lies as we see in the occasional cases where juries refuse to convict despite what seems like overwhelming evidence and there is no legal recourse toward the "errant" jurors.
posted by Bringer Tom at 2:44 PM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Bringer Tom at 2:44 PM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm not a lawyer but is it actually true that in the American court of law, intent and context are irrelevant to the process of framing a trial as well as the content of its proceedings?
Depends on the particular law. Crimes of violence have shades of intent and responsibility. If a person dies from irresponsible actions it's different than a carefully planned murder. But the laws of the security are both carefully crafted and explicitly agreed to by signing a contract with the government laying out very specific responsibilities.
posted by sammyo at 2:44 PM on September 18, 2016
Depends on the particular law. Crimes of violence have shades of intent and responsibility. If a person dies from irresponsible actions it's different than a carefully planned murder. But the laws of the security are both carefully crafted and explicitly agreed to by signing a contract with the government laying out very specific responsibilities.
posted by sammyo at 2:44 PM on September 18, 2016
Jury nullification is not extralegal
Isn't there some implied support in the Fifth Amendment double jeopardy provisions? What the jury decides is final, no matter if a judge or prosecutor or president has a differing opinion.
posted by sammyo at 2:48 PM on September 18, 2016
Isn't there some implied support in the Fifth Amendment double jeopardy provisions? What the jury decides is final, no matter if a judge or prosecutor or president has a differing opinion.
posted by sammyo at 2:48 PM on September 18, 2016
The State? The old MTV comedy sketch series?
posted by hippybear at 2:53 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by hippybear at 2:53 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes sammyo the prohibition of double jeopardy actually precedes the formal acceptance of jury nullification by a few hundred years. This meaning like the 13th-15th centuries. So none of this is like new jurisprudence.
posted by Bringer Tom at 2:59 PM on September 18, 2016
posted by Bringer Tom at 2:59 PM on September 18, 2016
I question the sincerity of Snowden's actions. He seems to have no trouble living in an authoritarian place like Russia.
Yes, I can't understand why he wouldn't just leave Russia and live in the UK or Sweden. Or maybe Canada.
posted by reynir at 3:11 PM on September 18, 2016
Yes, I can't understand why he wouldn't just leave Russia and live in the UK or Sweden. Or maybe Canada.
posted by reynir at 3:11 PM on September 18, 2016
Because his passport was revoked as he was passing through Russia on his way to, I believe, Argentina. He was stranded in Russia. He didn't choose to be there, that's just where he is.
posted by hippybear at 3:13 PM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 3:13 PM on September 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
Snowden was on his way to Ecuador where President Correa has eliminated the free press and turned to increasingly autocratic rule. Correa has been strongly criticized by Freedom House and Human Rights Watch.
posted by humanfont at 3:29 PM on September 18, 2016
posted by humanfont at 3:29 PM on September 18, 2016
I think I smell a little belated CYA action, especially after that animated discussion with the Feds...
posted by jim in austin at 3:30 PM on September 18, 2016
posted by jim in austin at 3:30 PM on September 18, 2016
Attacking Snowden over where he went--or wanted to go--is really odd to me. Choosing to live somewhere isn't the same as supporting the actions of its government.
By that logic, I support, among other things: (a) poisoning entire towns, (b) removing elected officials and installing my political friends, (c) political murder, (d) violent suppression of dissent...
(Some of these are in the USA; some of these are not.)
But that's not true. Rather, I had other reasons to go and these things were costs. And I wasn't even fleeing for my freedom; I had a lot of choice.
Snowden had limited places to go. His reasons for choosing Ecuador were pragmatic--and are also freely explained online if you bother to read about them. "I just really love Correa" is not one of those reasons. "I think Ecuador is more free than the USA" is not one of those reasons. The reason is "I'm less likely to get my ass shipped back to the USA."
It's only hypocrisy if you read approval of Ecuador's politics into his choice. But that's you doing that reading.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 3:54 PM on September 18, 2016 [16 favorites]
By that logic, I support, among other things: (a) poisoning entire towns, (b) removing elected officials and installing my political friends, (c) political murder, (d) violent suppression of dissent...
(Some of these are in the USA; some of these are not.)
But that's not true. Rather, I had other reasons to go and these things were costs. And I wasn't even fleeing for my freedom; I had a lot of choice.
Snowden had limited places to go. His reasons for choosing Ecuador were pragmatic--and are also freely explained online if you bother to read about them. "I just really love Correa" is not one of those reasons. "I think Ecuador is more free than the USA" is not one of those reasons. The reason is "I'm less likely to get my ass shipped back to the USA."
It's only hypocrisy if you read approval of Ecuador's politics into his choice. But that's you doing that reading.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 3:54 PM on September 18, 2016 [16 favorites]
Fred Hiatt is the editorial page editor of The Post.
I wonder if anyone has questioned him as yet about this editorial.
The other board members are listed here.
I wonder whose particular agenda this is, and why.
posted by adamvasco at 4:03 PM on September 18, 2016
I wonder if anyone has questioned him as yet about this editorial.
The other board members are listed here.
I wonder whose particular agenda this is, and why.
posted by adamvasco at 4:03 PM on September 18, 2016
I question the sincerity of Snowden's actions. He seems to have no trouble living in an authoritarian place like Russia.
This is the most disingenuous argument - as if he had anywhere else to go? - and this
He doesn't seem to favor the kind of social democracy where government plays a constructive role in regulating the powerful. Instead he seems to favor a kind of libertarian world where the rich abd privileged classes such as white males are free to do as they please without regard for the needs of society and others.
is rather irrelevant to what he actually did and whether it was right or wrong.
posted by atoxyl at 4:40 PM on September 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
This is the most disingenuous argument - as if he had anywhere else to go? - and this
He doesn't seem to favor the kind of social democracy where government plays a constructive role in regulating the powerful. Instead he seems to favor a kind of libertarian world where the rich abd privileged classes such as white males are free to do as they please without regard for the needs of society and others.
is rather irrelevant to what he actually did and whether it was right or wrong.
posted by atoxyl at 4:40 PM on September 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
Nullification is an abhorrent, anti-democratic concept used in the service of hypocrisy that is only a clear indication that the whims of the twelve people who happen to be on that jury have subverted the rule of law in that case.
Jury nullification is as old as democracy is. A jury in classical Athens had even more freedom to reject the application of a law to an individual defendant than a present-day American jury does, because there was no judge to make rulings construing the law.
posted by praemunire at 4:52 PM on September 18, 2016
Jury nullification is as old as democracy is. A jury in classical Athens had even more freedom to reject the application of a law to an individual defendant than a present-day American jury does, because there was no judge to make rulings construing the law.
posted by praemunire at 4:52 PM on September 18, 2016
I do understand why people would argue that the proper conclusion to his act of civil disobedience would be to face the consequences, rather than to live sorta free at the cost of being treated as a gamepiece by Putin et. al. On the other hand he's practically the only witness we have to some very important goings on, so on balance I think it's a good thing that he's around and able to communicate to the extent that he can.
posted by atoxyl at 4:53 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by atoxyl at 4:53 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
If you're on trial for trafficking heroin, you're trying to dispute the elements of drug trafficking. Explaining that you had a very good reason to do so [...] is useless if the prosecution can establish that you have indeed engaged in trafficking it.
This is also not true. Defenses of necessity and/or duress are recognized in, I believe, every state. Rarely applicable in heroin trafficking trials, but they're the essence of "having a very good reason to do something."
posted by praemunire at 4:56 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is also not true. Defenses of necessity and/or duress are recognized in, I believe, every state. Rarely applicable in heroin trafficking trials, but they're the essence of "having a very good reason to do something."
posted by praemunire at 4:56 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Complicated times my ass. This is what propaganda looks like in 2016.
Also, freedom of the press my ass. This proves once again that big media is a mouthpiece for the government, with some dissenting voices thrown in an attempt at cover.
If you, presumably, would prefer to live in a free, open, democratic society, it should be clear that vigilance is needed to prevent wholesale spying on a level that would make the Stasi proud. (And the "distinction" between foreign and domestic is rather useless as with a net that wide you're going to catch both - and as has further been made clear, the NSA wasn't very careful anyway.)
Snowden is in the pantheon of heroes. If you think otherwise, you may have already imbibed too much of the official koolaid. If you believe in freedom but laws, some of them secret, permit surveillance on a level that is a grave danger of leading to oppression and tryanny, and there is also no proper "legal" recourse against it, rhetorical question, what is the corageous and right thing to do?
This is how they win, through jingoism, fearmongering, and debates over meaningless technicalities. It's not like there aren't mountains of evidence of government lying.
This is beyond shameful - a disgrace to journalism and to American democracy. At least they could change their name to Washington Pravda.
posted by blue shadows at 5:36 PM on September 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
Also, freedom of the press my ass. This proves once again that big media is a mouthpiece for the government, with some dissenting voices thrown in an attempt at cover.
If you, presumably, would prefer to live in a free, open, democratic society, it should be clear that vigilance is needed to prevent wholesale spying on a level that would make the Stasi proud. (And the "distinction" between foreign and domestic is rather useless as with a net that wide you're going to catch both - and as has further been made clear, the NSA wasn't very careful anyway.)
Snowden is in the pantheon of heroes. If you think otherwise, you may have already imbibed too much of the official koolaid. If you believe in freedom but laws, some of them secret, permit surveillance on a level that is a grave danger of leading to oppression and tryanny, and there is also no proper "legal" recourse against it, rhetorical question, what is the corageous and right thing to do?
This is how they win, through jingoism, fearmongering, and debates over meaningless technicalities. It's not like there aren't mountains of evidence of government lying.
This is beyond shameful - a disgrace to journalism and to American democracy. At least they could change their name to Washington Pravda.
posted by blue shadows at 5:36 PM on September 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
I think his actions matter more than his words. He took a large cache of secrets -- more than just the ones needed to blow the whistle. He was given a comfortable exile in Russia. It doesn't seem unreasonable to suspect a quid pro quo occurred. It might even have been a primary motivation. He wouldn't be the first traitor to claim a more noble intent.
posted by humanfont at 6:08 PM on September 18, 2016
posted by humanfont at 6:08 PM on September 18, 2016
You're right Humanfront, a quid pro quo could seem like Snowden's primary motivation if you knew nothing at all about the situation.
Snowden had a 200K salary, a home in Hawaii, a beautiful girlfriend, and a top level job in his field. I don't think he gave those things up in order to be hunted across the globe by the CIA, with an 80% chance that he ends up in a 10x10 cell being tortured for years.
posted by Balna Watya at 6:21 PM on September 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
Snowden had a 200K salary, a home in Hawaii, a beautiful girlfriend, and a top level job in his field. I don't think he gave those things up in order to be hunted across the globe by the CIA, with an 80% chance that he ends up in a 10x10 cell being tortured for years.
posted by Balna Watya at 6:21 PM on September 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
He was given a comfortable exile in Russia.
He was trapped in Russia by the US when we revoked his passport while he was in transit, stranding him in a Russian airport on his way from Hong Kong to a country other than Russia. He had already given all of his evidence over to western journalists in Hong Kong, took nothing from that trove with him, and did not plan on Russia as his destination.
posted by zippy at 6:54 PM on September 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
He was trapped in Russia by the US when we revoked his passport while he was in transit, stranding him in a Russian airport on his way from Hong Kong to a country other than Russia. He had already given all of his evidence over to western journalists in Hong Kong, took nothing from that trove with him, and did not plan on Russia as his destination.
posted by zippy at 6:54 PM on September 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
A lot if not most of these comments deal with the issue of whether Snowden is a traitor or a whistleblower, a hero or a louse. The post seems concerned with what to make of the paper that revealed what Snowden got and how they feel about his status. Is that no longer a concern for comment?
posted by Postroad at 7:15 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Postroad at 7:15 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
...while accepting safe harbor from Vladimir Putin...
Snowden's US passport was revoked while he was on his way to Moscow en route to Ecuador. He had no choice but to stay in Russia or surrender to US authorities somehow. The US government chose to strand him in Russia.
Sure, but that's nitpicking, since he explicitly endorsed Russia and praised Russia's offer of asylum. This is a quote from Snowden's statement after he was captured:
Yet even in the face of this historically disproportionate aggression, countries around the world have offered support and asylum. These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless. By refusing to compromise their principles in the face of intimidation, they have earned the respect of the world. It is my intention to travel to each of these countries to extend my personal thanks to their people and leaders.
In my view, that is not a list of countries that are doing better than the United States on human rights issues. I'll be curious to read more about how Snowden's views have evolved over time on these matters. A hero and a traitor indeed.
In any case, to answer my own question from earlier, it seems Snowden himself wants a Presidential pardon, at least as of this week.
posted by Kwine at 7:32 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Snowden's US passport was revoked while he was on his way to Moscow en route to Ecuador. He had no choice but to stay in Russia or surrender to US authorities somehow. The US government chose to strand him in Russia.
Sure, but that's nitpicking, since he explicitly endorsed Russia and praised Russia's offer of asylum. This is a quote from Snowden's statement after he was captured:
Yet even in the face of this historically disproportionate aggression, countries around the world have offered support and asylum. These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless. By refusing to compromise their principles in the face of intimidation, they have earned the respect of the world. It is my intention to travel to each of these countries to extend my personal thanks to their people and leaders.
In my view, that is not a list of countries that are doing better than the United States on human rights issues. I'll be curious to read more about how Snowden's views have evolved over time on these matters. A hero and a traitor indeed.
In any case, to answer my own question from earlier, it seems Snowden himself wants a Presidential pardon, at least as of this week.
posted by Kwine at 7:32 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
The US constitution is very clear about the definition of treachery, and from what I can see there is no way that Snowden's actions can amount to "levying War against [the United States] or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." It's fine to say that Snowden broke the law - a bad law IMO that should be changed - but treason is a specific term with a specific meaning, and the US' founding fathers were well aware of the dangers that would come from flinging it around indiscriminately.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:52 PM on September 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:52 PM on September 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
The premise of the post seems to believe that we should only use sources we think are good people. I don't see any rationale to that logic.
Snowden may have provided a public service by bringing to light NSA activity. But he also took the job with Booz Allen with the intent to gain access to additional classified documents, after contacting Greenwald and Poitras. He left the country prior to leaking the documents, knowing the US would make international travel impossible. He decided to live a life without a country, rather than deal with the risks and legitimacy of a trial. He might not have intended to end up in Russia, but he did not board any flight without understanding the risk that he may be stranded in Hong Kong or Russia.
posted by politikitty at 7:58 PM on September 18, 2016
Snowden may have provided a public service by bringing to light NSA activity. But he also took the job with Booz Allen with the intent to gain access to additional classified documents, after contacting Greenwald and Poitras. He left the country prior to leaking the documents, knowing the US would make international travel impossible. He decided to live a life without a country, rather than deal with the risks and legitimacy of a trial. He might not have intended to end up in Russia, but he did not board any flight without understanding the risk that he may be stranded in Hong Kong or Russia.
posted by politikitty at 7:58 PM on September 18, 2016
Kwine, usually when you quote something it is standard practice here on metafilter to link to it if at all possible. Not doing so needlessly obfuscates the context.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:06 PM on September 18, 2016
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:06 PM on September 18, 2016
To the contrary, a review of historical facts proves that the founding fathers did fling accusations of treason recklessly. They even used it to describe each other as they scrambled to build political power and argued over the shape of federalism under Washington and Adams. It wasn't until Jefferson and a peaceful transition of power from one faction to another that we saw that rhetoric go out of fashion.
The phrase "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" is imprecise and has been used to prosecute a range of acts like translating for POW's, organizing spy rings and leading enemy propaganda broadcasts. Furthermore while the death penalty can be applied in cases of treason historically the punishment has been far less. Some served less than 10 years in prison.
As for Snowden himself, we should be skeptical of his motives. A high salary, attractive significant other, and life in Hawaii are not proof of a noble and pure motive.
He didn't just reveal a narrow set of evidence to blow the whistle on possibly illegal programs that violated our civil rights. Snowden took a large cache of documents with him that allegedly contain very important secrets. He has released some of that information publically and the consequences have been to damage the US alliances with Germany and Israel in particular. The scope of his theft and presence in Russia leaves us not knowing what he shared with Russia and what he has kept from them.
I think it is important to have a prosecutor look closely at Snowden and that these items be argued before a judge and jury.
posted by humanfont at 8:41 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
The phrase "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" is imprecise and has been used to prosecute a range of acts like translating for POW's, organizing spy rings and leading enemy propaganda broadcasts. Furthermore while the death penalty can be applied in cases of treason historically the punishment has been far less. Some served less than 10 years in prison.
As for Snowden himself, we should be skeptical of his motives. A high salary, attractive significant other, and life in Hawaii are not proof of a noble and pure motive.
He didn't just reveal a narrow set of evidence to blow the whistle on possibly illegal programs that violated our civil rights. Snowden took a large cache of documents with him that allegedly contain very important secrets. He has released some of that information publically and the consequences have been to damage the US alliances with Germany and Israel in particular. The scope of his theft and presence in Russia leaves us not knowing what he shared with Russia and what he has kept from them.
I think it is important to have a prosecutor look closely at Snowden and that these items be argued before a judge and jury.
posted by humanfont at 8:41 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think it is important to have a prosecutor look closely at Snowden and that these items be argued before a judge and jury.
Yes, that would be appropriate. Is that what would happen to Snowden, though? Why would Snowden expect to be put on trial, rather than sequestered in one of the US' "black" sites and tortured? Even if he were to be put on trial, would it be a normal trial, or in one of the US's secret courts? Would he have the right of habeas corpus? Would he or his counsel be permitted to know the charges against him? Would he be permitted to summon witnesses or bring evidence on his behalf? These are not questions that used to be asked of the USA, but, sadly, that's no longer the case.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:56 PM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yes, that would be appropriate. Is that what would happen to Snowden, though? Why would Snowden expect to be put on trial, rather than sequestered in one of the US' "black" sites and tortured? Even if he were to be put on trial, would it be a normal trial, or in one of the US's secret courts? Would he have the right of habeas corpus? Would he or his counsel be permitted to know the charges against him? Would he be permitted to summon witnesses or bring evidence on his behalf? These are not questions that used to be asked of the USA, but, sadly, that's no longer the case.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:56 PM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Aren't the charges against him already known and were already listed earlier in this thread? Or am I missing something?
posted by hippybear at 9:01 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by hippybear at 9:01 PM on September 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
humanfont, want to push for prosecution of actions that directly damaged national security? Katherine Archuleta (Director, OPM) and Donna Seymour (CIO, OPM). There's your red meat. Snowden's impact is trite compared to these two, who lost *every* SF-86 (security clearance record) created in the last 25 years.
A good question i'd like to see the press pick up: Why no prosecutions here? Criminal negligence, at best.
</derail>
also: fuck wapo. parasites.
posted by j_curiouser at 9:19 PM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
A good question i'd like to see the press pick up: Why no prosecutions here? Criminal negligence, at best.
</derail>
also: fuck wapo. parasites.
posted by j_curiouser at 9:19 PM on September 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Snowden is a traitor and most likely a Russian spy -- working for Putin now if not all along. He has greatly betrayed and harmed American interests. The most favorable deal that he should ever get from the US government would be the death penalty off the table
posted by knoyers at 9:43 PM on September 18, 2016
posted by knoyers at 9:43 PM on September 18, 2016
Snowden is a traitor and most likely a Russian spy -- working for Putin now if not all along.
Then he'll be guaranteed a pardon from President Trump. Conspiratorialist me still suspects the WaPo editorial was really intended to bait their sworn enemy Donald to publicly declare he'll give Snowden a medal.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:56 PM on September 18, 2016
Then he'll be guaranteed a pardon from President Trump. Conspiratorialist me still suspects the WaPo editorial was really intended to bait their sworn enemy Donald to publicly declare he'll give Snowden a medal.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:56 PM on September 18, 2016
Aren't the charges against him already known and were already listed earlier in this thread?
The point of bringing charges against him at an earlier time was to allow the US government to call for his extradition and perhaps to justify cancelling his passport and so forth. That's not to say that new charges would be brought against him - but they might be, and there's no guarantee that he or his counsel would know about them. Or that he could meet with his counsel. Or that he would have counsel in the first place.
One of the reasons the US administration established a prison in Guantanamo was to create a space in which US constitutional guarantees didn't apply. The US Supreme Court has whittled away at this, but it's still something of a grey area. And even if Snowden (being a citizen) retains his constitutional rights, that's not much help if he's confined in an undisclosed location while being "interrogated".
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:04 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
The point of bringing charges against him at an earlier time was to allow the US government to call for his extradition and perhaps to justify cancelling his passport and so forth. That's not to say that new charges would be brought against him - but they might be, and there's no guarantee that he or his counsel would know about them. Or that he could meet with his counsel. Or that he would have counsel in the first place.
One of the reasons the US administration established a prison in Guantanamo was to create a space in which US constitutional guarantees didn't apply. The US Supreme Court has whittled away at this, but it's still something of a grey area. And even if Snowden (being a citizen) retains his constitutional rights, that's not much help if he's confined in an undisclosed location while being "interrogated".
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:04 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
consequences have been to damage the US alliances with Germany
Is this his fault for revealing what the US did, rather than our fault for doing it?
posted by atoxyl at 10:52 PM on September 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
Is this his fault for revealing what the US did, rather than our fault for doing it?
posted by atoxyl at 10:52 PM on September 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
I mean presumably it depends heavily on whether you think it was right for U.S. intelligence to be, for example, monitoring Angela Merkel's phone. Obviously I am not inclined to think it was!
posted by atoxyl at 10:56 PM on September 18, 2016
posted by atoxyl at 10:56 PM on September 18, 2016
Snowden is a traitor and most likely a Russian spy
Based on what evidence?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:57 PM on September 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Based on what evidence?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:57 PM on September 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
People don't want a "fair trial", they want Snowden to be pardoned for his crimes because they feel he was justified in doing what he did. A fair trial means a guilty verdict, because he unquestionably broke the law.
A fair trial means that the jury is empowered to reach an informed and impartial and ethical conclusion on whether their peer engaged in behavior intolerable to society. Old law that precludes a defense as fundamental and legitimate as whistleblowing smells like garbage law designed to preclude a fair trial, or perhaps written without anticipation of the extent to which secrecy would be systematically abused. Or perhaps his peers will concur with the espionage act's conclusion. But trying someone under such restrictions regardless and then pretending it's justice seems like going through the motions of law-theater, akin to a kangaroo court.
Your statement sounds like anything counts as fair if it was written in a lawbook somewhere, but I think that makes a mockery of justice, history, and seems to ignore that part of the purpose of a jury of peers is to bring the values of society into the decision, and/or (arguably) to be part of the system of checks and balances.
Snowden would not get a fair trial in the USA.
posted by anonymisc at 10:58 PM on September 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
A fair trial means that the jury is empowered to reach an informed and impartial and ethical conclusion on whether their peer engaged in behavior intolerable to society. Old law that precludes a defense as fundamental and legitimate as whistleblowing smells like garbage law designed to preclude a fair trial, or perhaps written without anticipation of the extent to which secrecy would be systematically abused. Or perhaps his peers will concur with the espionage act's conclusion. But trying someone under such restrictions regardless and then pretending it's justice seems like going through the motions of law-theater, akin to a kangaroo court.
Your statement sounds like anything counts as fair if it was written in a lawbook somewhere, but I think that makes a mockery of justice, history, and seems to ignore that part of the purpose of a jury of peers is to bring the values of society into the decision, and/or (arguably) to be part of the system of checks and balances.
Snowden would not get a fair trial in the USA.
posted by anonymisc at 10:58 PM on September 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
to quote myself re a "fair trial"
By the same government that refuses to prosecute torturers and war profiteers? The same government which refuses to properly regulate and hold accountable the capitalists currently destroying our planetary ecology and social fabric? The same government that tortured Bradley Manning? The same government currently involved in like at least ten different proxy wars as we speak?(and those are the ones that one can easily find information about on the internet) Yeah the rule of law is dead in this country and any prosecution of Snowden would be a Kangaroo Court bereft of all legitimacy. We as a nation have lost all credibility. So good on Snowden I hope he never sees a day in Jail or stands trial for any charges leveled by our sham of a government.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:18 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
By the same government that refuses to prosecute torturers and war profiteers? The same government which refuses to properly regulate and hold accountable the capitalists currently destroying our planetary ecology and social fabric? The same government that tortured Bradley Manning? The same government currently involved in like at least ten different proxy wars as we speak?(and those are the ones that one can easily find information about on the internet) Yeah the rule of law is dead in this country and any prosecution of Snowden would be a Kangaroo Court bereft of all legitimacy. We as a nation have lost all credibility. So good on Snowden I hope he never sees a day in Jail or stands trial for any charges leveled by our sham of a government.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:18 PM on September 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think the WaPo opinion piece is essentially correct--I would be willing to place Snowden in a pantheon of heroic whistleblowers if not for the sticky problem of his decision to release information he had not personally read. When pressed about his "evaluation" of the documents he released, he admitted, to John Oliver of all people, that "evaluating" does not necessarily mean "reading." Apparently WaPo didn't do much reading, either, because they disclosed unredacted documentation of an ongoing intelligence operation against al-Qaeda.
I also think that Snowden is the inevitable consequence of staffing intelligence agencies with contractors. Regardless of his experience with the CIA and elsewhere, the NSA put a Dell employee in an extremely sensitive position. In some ways I think they got what they deserved. And while I greatly appreciate Snowden's leak on the illegal domestic intelligence program, I think he should have stopped there. He continues to leak dribs and drabs via interviews to keep himself relevant and worth the $10,000 people pay for him to speak via Skype or whatever. Furthermore, if he really did try to take this through channels first, as he claims, he should provide documentation that he has done so. The NSA claims they can find no record of his attempts to whistleblow and he refuses to provide any of the documentation he claims to have for independent review.
Personally, I like my whistleblowers to be like Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame. He faced the music and stood behind his actions and his lawyers managed to destroy the government's case.
posted by xyzzy at 11:47 PM on September 18, 2016
I also think that Snowden is the inevitable consequence of staffing intelligence agencies with contractors. Regardless of his experience with the CIA and elsewhere, the NSA put a Dell employee in an extremely sensitive position. In some ways I think they got what they deserved. And while I greatly appreciate Snowden's leak on the illegal domestic intelligence program, I think he should have stopped there. He continues to leak dribs and drabs via interviews to keep himself relevant and worth the $10,000 people pay for him to speak via Skype or whatever. Furthermore, if he really did try to take this through channels first, as he claims, he should provide documentation that he has done so. The NSA claims they can find no record of his attempts to whistleblow and he refuses to provide any of the documentation he claims to have for independent review.
Personally, I like my whistleblowers to be like Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame. He faced the music and stood behind his actions and his lawyers managed to destroy the government's case.
posted by xyzzy at 11:47 PM on September 18, 2016
You can't compare someone arrested in 1971 with someone arrested today. The laws are different and the legal climate is different.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:38 AM on September 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:38 AM on September 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Maybe I've missed this somewhere, but why won't or can't Russia issue Snowden a passport or travel documents that would let him leave? Is it that Putin enjoys having Snowden around to annoy the U.S.?
As for WaPo, permit me to quote the late presidential candidate Patrick Layton Paulsen: "We've upped our standards. Now, up yours."
posted by bryon at 1:19 AM on September 19, 2016
As for WaPo, permit me to quote the late presidential candidate Patrick Layton Paulsen: "We've upped our standards. Now, up yours."
posted by bryon at 1:19 AM on September 19, 2016
What I don't understand is the idea that Snowden has done a heroic thing, rendered a service to humanity, and now he ought to man up and face the consequences like a good little martyr. Like, this isn't some inspirational biopic where you shed a beautiful tear at the hero's tragic end then go get tacos. This is Snowden's actual, only life. And even people who think he did a great thing won't even stand up and say, no, he shouldn't be tortured, detained forever, deprived of everything, possibly killed. I mean, the gall of sitting on your ass at home and being like, I guess exposing sinister government activities at the cost of everything you've ever known is pretty cool, but...
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 1:47 AM on September 19, 2016 [32 favorites]
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 1:47 AM on September 19, 2016 [32 favorites]
I seldom agree with the WaPo editorial page, but I think they got this one right. Bob Baer made the case last week on Ian Masters that we should regard ES as a Russian agent at this point.
posted by persona au gratin at 2:01 AM on September 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by persona au gratin at 2:01 AM on September 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is it that Putin enjoys having Snowden around to annoy the U.S.?Snowden is an FSB protectee, presumably by Putin's orders. There's no way they're going to let him just leave Russia and go blab about FSB methods and procedures to Americans or anyone else. Given his history, they have no reason to believe that he will keep mum about his time with the FSB. The Russians made it quite clear that if Snowden attempted to leave, they would immediately revoke his asylum. So for all intents and purposes, he's a prisoner.
posted by xyzzy at 2:21 AM on September 19, 2016
Xizzy, Elsberg himself disagrees. He says that he did what he did in a very different America, a long time ago and that Snowden today has no chance to get a fair trial.
posted by Ashenmote at 2:29 AM on September 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Ashenmote at 2:29 AM on September 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
I am aware of Ellsberg's position and I mostly agree with it. But my preference for employees with security clearances to carefully and thoughtfully restrict their leaks to programs that are illegal or unconstitutional stands. If he'd done that my feelings about him would be much less complicated. I've known and cared about far too many people who work in intelligence services and have security clearances to just celebrate the collateral leaking of legal programs that endanger people doing difficult and necessary work for the safety and security of American citizens.
In an ideal world, we could get a less complicated case to the Supreme Court so they can consider the constitutionality of the Espionage Act. But it's too late for Snowden, now. He's been in Russia for years and there's no chance he would be considered anything but an agent of a foreign government.
posted by xyzzy at 3:14 AM on September 19, 2016
In an ideal world, we could get a less complicated case to the Supreme Court so they can consider the constitutionality of the Espionage Act. But it's too late for Snowden, now. He's been in Russia for years and there's no chance he would be considered anything but an agent of a foreign government.
posted by xyzzy at 3:14 AM on September 19, 2016
What, retrospectively?
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:22 AM on September 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:22 AM on September 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
People keep claiming Snowden is "Russian agent" without providing any evidence...why is that? I mean if there is some evidence then by all means please share it with us. Otherwise, there is no reason for us to take anything you say seriously.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:09 AM on September 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:09 AM on September 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
People keep claiming Snowden is "Russian agent" without providing any evidence...
What Snowden said doesn't apply to just the government:
What Snowden said doesn't apply to just the government:
Ever wonder why the Government lies even when they know they'll get caught? Asymmetry. It's a tax on resistance... The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:24 AM on September 19, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm not saying he is a Russian agent; I'm saying he will be presumed to be a Russian agent. Snowden didn't arrive in Russia and have his mind wiped--he has plenty of knowledge about secret programs and the workings of the CIA and the NSA that would interest the FSB. Even if he's been completely silent on those matters it wouldn't matter even a little--absolutely no one who matters will believe that he hasn't supplied the FSB with intelligence.
posted by xyzzy at 4:36 AM on September 19, 2016
posted by xyzzy at 4:36 AM on September 19, 2016
I´m a little disappointed at the way this discussion is gone but such is life.
In my mind the Snowden is a hero (yes) Snowden is a traitor and should be shot argument is secundary to what has happened here.
Wapo accepted documents from a whistleblowing source and profits mightily from the relevations its own editorial board decides to publish and now turns around and advocates for the source to be burnt.
This is revolting behaviour and noone has yet seen ft to call them on it.
I was wondering if any of the knowlegeable (as opposed to partisan) crowd here can shine any light on this without getting into the tackiness of "Its the law" as bad law will always be just that, bad.
Is there such a thing as journalistic standards in any of the mainstream media and who is pushing Wapos buttons.?
I don´t buy the Lets get Trump to declare him a hero hypothethis.
posted by adamvasco at 6:22 AM on September 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
In my mind the Snowden is a hero (yes) Snowden is a traitor and should be shot argument is secundary to what has happened here.
Wapo accepted documents from a whistleblowing source and profits mightily from the relevations its own editorial board decides to publish and now turns around and advocates for the source to be burnt.
This is revolting behaviour and noone has yet seen ft to call them on it.
I was wondering if any of the knowlegeable (as opposed to partisan) crowd here can shine any light on this without getting into the tackiness of "Its the law" as bad law will always be just that, bad.
Is there such a thing as journalistic standards in any of the mainstream media and who is pushing Wapos buttons.?
I don´t buy the Lets get Trump to declare him a hero hypothethis.
posted by adamvasco at 6:22 AM on September 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm not saying he is a Russian agent; I'm saying he will be presumed to be a Russian agent.
People presume all kinds of stupid things. There's literally more evidence that he's a US agent under deep cover in Russia. The only reason he's even there is the US govt. stranded him when they pulled his passport. Remember when he was living in the airport because Russia was deciding what to do with him?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:30 AM on September 19, 2016
People presume all kinds of stupid things. There's literally more evidence that he's a US agent under deep cover in Russia. The only reason he's even there is the US govt. stranded him when they pulled his passport. Remember when he was living in the airport because Russia was deciding what to do with him?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:30 AM on September 19, 2016
. . . most likely a Russian spy . . .
jetfuelandgirders.png
Also there is no way in hell the WP is the first paper in history to call for prosecution of its own source.
posted by aspersioncast at 8:20 AM on September 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
jetfuelandgirders.png
Also there is no way in hell the WP is the first paper in history to call for prosecution of its own source.
posted by aspersioncast at 8:20 AM on September 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is revolting behaviour and noone has yet seen ft to call them on it.
Yes, they have. Read your own thread.
posted by zarq at 8:24 AM on September 19, 2016
Yes, they have. Read your own thread.
posted by zarq at 8:24 AM on September 19, 2016
Read your own thread
I was refering to those with some sort of stature in the public eye ie Greenwald not keyboard warriors.
posted by adamvasco at 8:30 AM on September 19, 2016
I was refering to those with some sort of stature in the public eye ie Greenwald not keyboard warriors.
posted by adamvasco at 8:30 AM on September 19, 2016
I was refering to those with some sort of stature in the public eye ie Greenwald not keyboard warriors.
Noted. Considering that your next sentence took a swipe at people here, a misread is understandable.
posted by zarq at 8:32 AM on September 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Noted. Considering that your next sentence took a swipe at people here, a misread is understandable.
posted by zarq at 8:32 AM on September 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Personally, I like my whistleblowers to be like Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame.
Long ago and seen as part of already-analysed history, not modern and challenging the status quo?
posted by the agents of KAOS at 8:34 AM on September 19, 2016 [14 favorites]
Long ago and seen as part of already-analysed history, not modern and challenging the status quo?
posted by the agents of KAOS at 8:34 AM on September 19, 2016 [14 favorites]
Oh well we "keyboard warriors" will definitely be careful to parse you better next time you deign to grace us with your presence, believe it!
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 8:55 AM on September 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 8:55 AM on September 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
One of the things mentioned in the Washington Post editorial is that activist groups like the ACLU and Human Rights Watch are currently making a concerted effort to lobby President Obama to pardon Snowden before he leaves office.
Part of the reason they're doing so is Oliver Stone's positive biopic about Snowden, which premiered in the US this weekend. Meanwhile, members of the House Intelligence Committee released and adopted the executive summary of their report last week that condemns Snowden and discusses the damage they say his leaks did to U.S. security -- some of which was addressed and debunked by Glenn Greenwald in his Intercept piece, linked in this post above. The Committee also sent the President a letter opposing a pardon.
The Post says (different article) that last Wednesday, PardonSnowden.org was launched. Since then, editorials have appeared in the Guardian (by Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein), US News & World Report, The Chicago Sun-Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The New York Times.
posted by zarq at 8:58 AM on September 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Part of the reason they're doing so is Oliver Stone's positive biopic about Snowden, which premiered in the US this weekend. Meanwhile, members of the House Intelligence Committee released and adopted the executive summary of their report last week that condemns Snowden and discusses the damage they say his leaks did to U.S. security -- some of which was addressed and debunked by Glenn Greenwald in his Intercept piece, linked in this post above. The Committee also sent the President a letter opposing a pardon.
The Post says (different article) that last Wednesday, PardonSnowden.org was launched. Since then, editorials have appeared in the Guardian (by Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein), US News & World Report, The Chicago Sun-Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The New York Times.
posted by zarq at 8:58 AM on September 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
*throws the WaPo on his hosts file blacklist*
And with that, my devices + home wifi are disconnected from a whopping 11 newspapers.
posted by rufb at 10:17 AM on September 19, 2016
And with that, my devices + home wifi are disconnected from a whopping 11 newspapers.
posted by rufb at 10:17 AM on September 19, 2016
Wapo accepted documents from a whistleblowing source and profits mightily from the relevations its own editorial board decides to publish and now turns around and advocates for the source to be burnt.
But this is normal behavior! The alternative would be a press that could never use a source that wasn't above approach. Could we never interview Putin, because we think he's a corrupt dictator? Could we never use any information he provides, even if we fact check it for probative value?
The premise that the Washington Post's editorial board is not allowed to side against a source compromises the very concept of a free press.
The only way to discuss the Washington Post's actions is to discuss whether or not the Washington Post was correct in it's assessment of Snowden.
He took his job with Booz Allen with the sole intention of stealing additional state secrets, and making them public. That's criminal activism. And I understand there are people who support Greenpeace and Hactivism. But it's very different from whistleblowing.
Also, I find it very strange that people still believe that Snowden will be killed or disappeared once in US custody. Not because our government doesn't do it. But because the celebrity around Snowden would protect him from the worst our government might do.
posted by politikitty at 10:42 AM on September 19, 2016
But this is normal behavior! The alternative would be a press that could never use a source that wasn't above approach. Could we never interview Putin, because we think he's a corrupt dictator? Could we never use any information he provides, even if we fact check it for probative value?
The premise that the Washington Post's editorial board is not allowed to side against a source compromises the very concept of a free press.
The only way to discuss the Washington Post's actions is to discuss whether or not the Washington Post was correct in it's assessment of Snowden.
He took his job with Booz Allen with the sole intention of stealing additional state secrets, and making them public. That's criminal activism. And I understand there are people who support Greenpeace and Hactivism. But it's very different from whistleblowing.
Also, I find it very strange that people still believe that Snowden will be killed or disappeared once in US custody. Not because our government doesn't do it. But because the celebrity around Snowden would protect him from the worst our government might do.
posted by politikitty at 10:42 AM on September 19, 2016
like it protected private manning you mean?
posted by entropicamericana at 10:54 AM on September 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 10:54 AM on September 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
But this is normal behavior!
But your comparison--to Putin--is a different situation. The issue isn't that the Washington Post interviewed Snowden; it's that they profited from the very same action that they think Snowden should be arrested for.
I am sympathetic to the argument that there is a lot of nuance here re: the responsibilities of the press and how they are different than Snowden's responsibilities, but that's just really not a fair comparison at all. I didn't get the impression that anyone is arguing a newspaper should never side against a source. It's the particular hypocrisy of this case that stands out.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 11:21 AM on September 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
But your comparison--to Putin--is a different situation. The issue isn't that the Washington Post interviewed Snowden; it's that they profited from the very same action that they think Snowden should be arrested for.
I am sympathetic to the argument that there is a lot of nuance here re: the responsibilities of the press and how they are different than Snowden's responsibilities, but that's just really not a fair comparison at all. I didn't get the impression that anyone is arguing a newspaper should never side against a source. It's the particular hypocrisy of this case that stands out.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 11:21 AM on September 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
Techdirt: House Intelligence Committee's List Of 'Snowden's Lies' Almost Entirely False
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:39 AM on September 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:39 AM on September 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
He took his job with Booz Allen with the sole intention of stealing additional state secrets, and making them public. That's criminal activism. And I understand there are people who support Greenpeace and Hactivism. But it's very different from whistleblowing.
It is not. Snowden's actions are clearly those of a whistleblower. He intentionally and knowingly broke the law in order to inform the public about unethical activity (and abuse of power) being conducted by the US government.
That is unambiguous.
posted by zarq at 12:41 PM on September 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
It is not. Snowden's actions are clearly those of a whistleblower. He intentionally and knowingly broke the law in order to inform the public about unethical activity (and abuse of power) being conducted by the US government.
That is unambiguous.
posted by zarq at 12:41 PM on September 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Barton Gellman Hits Washington Post’s “Passive Aggressive Critique” of Its Own Snowden Reporting: "It's a good thing for the Post, and for journalism, that the opinion staff has no say in what counts as news."
It’s certainly uncomfortable for the editorial board, which operates separate from the newsroom, to advocate for Snowden’s prosecution, but even if it didn’t, Snowden was the newspaper’s source, not its friend, as journalism professor Dan Kennedy correctly pointed out. That’s a distinction some journalists from the Guardian, where Greenwald published his Pulitzer-winning work based on Snowden’s revelations, could have used some help with at times.posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:11 PM on September 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Post board’s assertion that PRISM was neither illegal nor a threat to privacy is a different matter.
“I disagree profoundly on both counts,” says Gellman, a former full-time Post reporter who was on contract with the newspaper when he reported on the NSA. “There are serious, unresolved legal challenges to PRISM’s constitutionality.”
The program, he and Poitras reported in 2013, employed a remarkably imprecise method to test whether a surveillance subject was foreign, and its training materials said any information from Americans that analysts accidentally vacuumed up was “nothing to worry about.” The intelligence community, Gellman tells Washingtonian, “continues to store” that information “and search it at will without judicial oversight.” But other than that, not a privacy threat, apparently.
A whistleblower is someone who discovers wrongdoing in the normal course of their job, and brings that wrongdoing to light, regardless of the consequences of that action.
The work that he did with Dell could be classified as whistleblowing.
The work that he did with BoozAllen was stealing state secrets.
The Washington Post has an ethical duty to their sources. But it doesn't not go so far as absolving their sources of any wrongdoing they do, regardless of whether or not the results make great journalism. It would go so far as not outing their source, and not turning over information to help prosecute their source.
The ends don't justify the means. We know that philosophy leads to abuse by governments and terrorists on a regular basis. So I don't feel comfortable with everyone trying to invoke it here. Not because both sides are equivalent, but because the means actually matters.
posted by politikitty at 1:13 PM on September 19, 2016
The work that he did with Dell could be classified as whistleblowing.
The work that he did with BoozAllen was stealing state secrets.
The Washington Post has an ethical duty to their sources. But it doesn't not go so far as absolving their sources of any wrongdoing they do, regardless of whether or not the results make great journalism. It would go so far as not outing their source, and not turning over information to help prosecute their source.
The ends don't justify the means. We know that philosophy leads to abuse by governments and terrorists on a regular basis. So I don't feel comfortable with everyone trying to invoke it here. Not because both sides are equivalent, but because the means actually matters.
posted by politikitty at 1:13 PM on September 19, 2016
What counts as unethical in the world spy craft? Do we let each spook decide what is secret and what must be brought to light based on their individual conscience?
posted by humanfont at 1:14 PM on September 19, 2016
posted by humanfont at 1:14 PM on September 19, 2016
Snowden was the newspaper’s source, not its friend
WaPo seems to think throwing its sources under the bus is a viable strategy. They are wrong.
The ends don't justify the means.
That's Snowden's ENTIRE FUCKING POINT.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:16 PM on September 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
WaPo seems to think throwing its sources under the bus is a viable strategy. They are wrong.
The ends don't justify the means.
That's Snowden's ENTIRE FUCKING POINT.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:16 PM on September 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
A whistleblower is someone who discovers wrongdoing in the normal course of their job, and brings that wrongdoing to light, regardless of the consequences of that action.
How granular do you want to get with that? Does it count as whistleblowing if someone is assigned to a different business unit? Does overhearing someone in the next bathroom stall count as "the normal course of their job"?
posted by Etrigan at 1:23 PM on September 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
How granular do you want to get with that? Does it count as whistleblowing if someone is assigned to a different business unit? Does overhearing someone in the next bathroom stall count as "the normal course of their job"?
posted by Etrigan at 1:23 PM on September 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
How granular do you want to get with that?
So what if the line is grey? The line is also about 200 feet behind Snowden at the point that he seeks a new job, with the sole intention of gaining additional state secrets. I haven't seen any indication that the second job was necessary to expose the PRISM operations.
posted by politikitty at 1:48 PM on September 19, 2016
So what if the line is grey? The line is also about 200 feet behind Snowden at the point that he seeks a new job, with the sole intention of gaining additional state secrets. I haven't seen any indication that the second job was necessary to expose the PRISM operations.
posted by politikitty at 1:48 PM on September 19, 2016
So what if the line is grey? The line is also about 200 feet behind Snowden at the point that he seeks a new job, with the sole intention of gaining additional state secrets. I haven't seen any indication that the second job was necessary to expose the PRISM operations.
So at what point are you supposed to say "okay, I've exposed my fair share of [things I strongly believe the world needs to know] - time to let somebody else have their turn?" I mean, obviously there are legitimate questions about the whole idea of one person making a decision like that - I judge that it was right in this case simply because I think the supposed democratic oversight mechanisms for this stuff are a joke and because I've read the material released via Greenwald and Poitras and it's information I'm glad the public is aware of. Some people disagree with me about that altogether but if you don't disagree about the PRISM disclosures I don't understand exactly why you choose to draw a line where you do with the rest.
posted by atoxyl at 2:13 PM on September 19, 2016
So at what point are you supposed to say "okay, I've exposed my fair share of [things I strongly believe the world needs to know] - time to let somebody else have their turn?" I mean, obviously there are legitimate questions about the whole idea of one person making a decision like that - I judge that it was right in this case simply because I think the supposed democratic oversight mechanisms for this stuff are a joke and because I've read the material released via Greenwald and Poitras and it's information I'm glad the public is aware of. Some people disagree with me about that altogether but if you don't disagree about the PRISM disclosures I don't understand exactly why you choose to draw a line where you do with the rest.
posted by atoxyl at 2:13 PM on September 19, 2016
As I said above I think it would in a way solidify his moral authority to turn himself in to the U.S. Because while I don't buy at all that he was ever a Russian agent he has sort of inevitably ended up a focus for Russian propaganda - and that's going to make people distrust him even if he's not in a position to do much about it. However that has to balance against the value of him being able to comment on issues in a way that few others can - and it seems unlikely that he would be able to in prison.
posted by atoxyl at 2:21 PM on September 19, 2016
posted by atoxyl at 2:21 PM on September 19, 2016
politikitty: A whistleblower is someone who discovers wrongdoing in the normal course of their job, and brings that wrongdoing to light, regardless of the consequences of that action.
No. "A whistleblower is anyone who has and reports insider knowledge of illegal activities occurring in an organization. Whistleblowers can be employees, suppliers, contractors, clients or any individual who somehow becomes aware of illegal activities taking place in a business either through witnessing the behavior or being told about it."
posted by zarq at 2:36 PM on September 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
No. "A whistleblower is anyone who has and reports insider knowledge of illegal activities occurring in an organization. Whistleblowers can be employees, suppliers, contractors, clients or any individual who somehow becomes aware of illegal activities taking place in a business either through witnessing the behavior or being told about it."
posted by zarq at 2:36 PM on September 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Eh, without getting too deep into the weeds, Investopedia isn't really an adequate cite for whistleblower protection as it pertains to cleared contractors. Vastly different statutes for the latter, with less protection and more of a need to demonstrate going through the proper channels to raise your concerns.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:19 PM on September 19, 2016
posted by tonycpsu at 3:19 PM on September 19, 2016
My distinction wasn't that he was a contractor, and not an employee. Even your definition of whistleblower still hinges on a passive discovery of wrongdoing.
What Snowden did while working at Dell was passive discovery. What Snowden did while working for BoozAllen was active investigation.
That is an important distinction. And while I understand that people in this thread think that both scenarios are ethically acceptable, I can't understand the argument that they're the same thing.
posted by politikitty at 3:23 PM on September 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
What Snowden did while working at Dell was passive discovery. What Snowden did while working for BoozAllen was active investigation.
That is an important distinction. And while I understand that people in this thread think that both scenarios are ethically acceptable, I can't understand the argument that they're the same thing.
posted by politikitty at 3:23 PM on September 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm really perplexed by a lot of this discussion, and the manner in which it focuses exclusively on Snowden and not on those whom he exposed. The laws as currently written make it literally impossible to expose malfeasance by the authorities without breaking the law oneself. It's the very definition of a Catch-22 - "It's illegal because it's wrong, it's wrong because it's illegal". What of Petraeus, who spilled the beans for some combination of sex, influence and swagger? Is he a traitor? He's certainly a criminal of one stripe or another by the standards that Snowden's being held to.
More importantly, though, what of those exposed by Snowden? What about the intelligence chiefs who outright lied to government committees about their illegal activities? What about the members of those committees who turned a blind eye to what was going on, in contravention of the constitution? Where's the witch-hunt for them? Where is the hand-wringing for their betrayals of their country? As long as they wrap themselves in the flag , they are excused anything. The hypocrisy sickens me.
posted by Jakey at 3:24 PM on September 19, 2016 [16 favorites]
More importantly, though, what of those exposed by Snowden? What about the intelligence chiefs who outright lied to government committees about their illegal activities? What about the members of those committees who turned a blind eye to what was going on, in contravention of the constitution? Where's the witch-hunt for them? Where is the hand-wringing for their betrayals of their country? As long as they wrap themselves in the flag , they are excused anything. The hypocrisy sickens me.
posted by Jakey at 3:24 PM on September 19, 2016 [16 favorites]
Yes, it does though you omitted the chief executives who also knew.
posted by clavdivs at 3:39 PM on September 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 3:39 PM on September 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Personally, I like my whistleblowers to be like Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame.No. A single issue leaker who went to Congress before calling reporters without the added complexity of running away only to be stranded in Russia. Because I'd actually like the goddamn Espionage Act and lack of whistleblower protection for those with security clearances to be addressed by legislators and SCOTUS. But by all means, please deliberately ignore everything else I've written on the topic about the complexity of the Snowden situation and cherry-pick my quotes in order to misrepresent my views.
Long ago and seen as part of already-analysed history, not modern and challenging the status quo?
posted by xyzzy at 4:46 AM on September 20, 2016
No. A single issue leaker who went to Congress before calling reporters without the added complexity of running away only to be stranded in Russia. Because I'd actually like the goddamn Espionage Act and lack of whistleblower protection for those with security clearances to be addressed by legislators and SCOTUS
William Binney did that. And then the FBI raided his home after the whistleblower program leaked his identity to Justice Department, leading to a dawn raid at gunpoint by the FBI.
When you are raided at gunpoint, there is some chance a gun will go off and you will die.
SCOTUS has not considered the case. Legislators have not done anything. And Binney risked death after going through channels.
posted by zippy at 9:32 AM on September 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
William Binney did that. And then the FBI raided his home after the whistleblower program leaked his identity to Justice Department, leading to a dawn raid at gunpoint by the FBI.
When you are raided at gunpoint, there is some chance a gun will go off and you will die.
SCOTUS has not considered the case. Legislators have not done anything. And Binney risked death after going through channels.
posted by zippy at 9:32 AM on September 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
A single issue leaker
I realize I'm just "cherry-picking" here, but are you actually saying that Snowden did too much whistleblowing to be a whistleblower?
posted by Etrigan at 9:45 AM on September 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
I realize I'm just "cherry-picking" here, but are you actually saying that Snowden did too much whistleblowing to be a whistleblower?
posted by Etrigan at 9:45 AM on September 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
too much whistleblowing to be a whistleblower
I don't see why that's such a ridiculous statement. To compare it to private industry, it's the difference between being a whistleblower and corporate espionage. They both might bring wrongdoing to light. But one is a public good designed to make the industry better, while the other is a designed to take down another company for the benefit of a few. Changing public policy to protect whistleblowers makes us safer. Changing public policy to protect espionage is destructive.
Snowden insists his intent was only to make the public aware. That implies that he's okay with the American people shrugging their shoulders and deciding widespread privacy violations are acceptable. And to be honest, a lot of Americans are comfortable with a relative lack of privacy.
But that's at odds with his behavior. He held off on making the NSA accountable. He hit his self described 'breaking point', and instead of going public, he double downed on trying to get even more information. He put off the public good, and it seems like he did so to put together a golden parachute for himself.
posted by politikitty at 10:22 AM on September 20, 2016
I don't see why that's such a ridiculous statement. To compare it to private industry, it's the difference between being a whistleblower and corporate espionage. They both might bring wrongdoing to light. But one is a public good designed to make the industry better, while the other is a designed to take down another company for the benefit of a few. Changing public policy to protect whistleblowers makes us safer. Changing public policy to protect espionage is destructive.
Snowden insists his intent was only to make the public aware. That implies that he's okay with the American people shrugging their shoulders and deciding widespread privacy violations are acceptable. And to be honest, a lot of Americans are comfortable with a relative lack of privacy.
But that's at odds with his behavior. He held off on making the NSA accountable. He hit his self described 'breaking point', and instead of going public, he double downed on trying to get even more information. He put off the public good, and it seems like he did so to put together a golden parachute for himself.
posted by politikitty at 10:22 AM on September 20, 2016
And to be honest, a lot of Americans are comfortable with a relative lack of privacy.
Those would be Americans who are privileged and not subject to abuses by the state. Furthermore, these people would seem to be staggeringly unaware of the history of state surveillance and its abuses. But again, if they are this just speaks to their privilege and lack of empathy for fellow citizens who are less privileged.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:43 AM on September 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Those would be Americans who are privileged and not subject to abuses by the state. Furthermore, these people would seem to be staggeringly unaware of the history of state surveillance and its abuses. But again, if they are this just speaks to their privilege and lack of empathy for fellow citizens who are less privileged.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:43 AM on September 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
The treatment of whistleblowers and the failure official systems of oversight and accountability for our intelligence services is a compelling argument in favor of a pardon or reduced charges. It has me reconsidering my views.
posted by humanfont at 10:50 AM on September 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 10:50 AM on September 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan (who covers media for the Post's Style section): As a source — and a patriot — Edward Snowden deserves a presidential pardon.
posted by mbrubeck at 11:02 AM on September 20, 2016
posted by mbrubeck at 11:02 AM on September 20, 2016
it seems like he did so to put together a golden parachute for himself.
I don't think we're reading the same accounts of Snowden's actions.
posted by zippy at 11:06 AM on September 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't think we're reading the same accounts of Snowden's actions.
posted by zippy at 11:06 AM on September 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
To compare it to private industry, it's the difference between being a whistleblower and corporate espionage
No, it's just not. Corporate Espionage does not end with turning information over to reporters.
You're faulting Snowden for finding out just how deep the rabbit hole was. I'm praising him for it.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:41 AM on September 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
No, it's just not. Corporate Espionage does not end with turning information over to reporters.
You're faulting Snowden for finding out just how deep the rabbit hole was. I'm praising him for it.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:41 AM on September 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
And to be honest, a lot of Americans are comfortable with a relative lack of privacy.
Most aren't. From 2015:
posted by zarq at 11:49 AM on September 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Most aren't. From 2015:
Two new Pew Research Center surveys explore these issues and place them in the wider context of the tracking and profiling that occurs in commercial arenas. The surveys find that Americans feel privacy is important in their daily lives in a number of essential ways. Yet, they have a pervasive sense that they are under surveillance when in public and very few feel they have a great deal of control over the data that is collected about them and how it is used. Adding to earlier Pew Research reports that have documented low levels of trust in sectors that Americans associate with data collection and monitoring, the new findings show Americans also have exceedingly low levels of confidence in the privacy and security of the records that are maintained by a variety of institutions in the digital age.
While some Americans have taken modest steps to stem the tide of data collection, few have adopted advanced privacy-enhancing measures. However, majorities of Americans expect that a wide array of organizations should have limits on the length of time that they can retain records of their activities and communications. At the same time, Americans continue to express the belief that there should be greater limits on government surveillance programs. Additionally, they say it is important to preserve the ability to be anonymous for certain online activities.
The majority of Americans believe it is important – often “very important” – that they be able to maintain privacy and confidentiality in commonplace activities of their lives. Most strikingly, these views are especially pronounced when it comes to knowing what information about them is being collected and who is doing the collecting. These feelings also extend to their wishes that they be able to maintain privacy in their homes, at work, during social gatherings, at times when they want to be alone and when they are moving around in public.
posted by zarq at 11:49 AM on September 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Eh, without getting too deep into the weeds, Investopedia isn't really an adequate cite for whistleblower protection as it pertains to cleared contractors. Vastly different statutes for the latter, with less protection and more of a need to demonstrate going through the proper channels to raise your concerns.
The argument being made is that Snowden cannot be considered a whistleblower, because he did not discover ethical and legal violations by the government in the course of his work. That limited definition precludes anyone who is not an employee of a company or organization or goverment agency from being considered a whistleblower.
This makes no sense. Such a limited definition does not include contractors, yet there are existing Federal laws which explicitly protect whistleblowers who are contractors, such as the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) which protects them from retaliation if they testify before Congress.
posted by zarq at 12:13 PM on September 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
The argument being made is that Snowden cannot be considered a whistleblower, because he did not discover ethical and legal violations by the government in the course of his work. That limited definition precludes anyone who is not an employee of a company or organization or goverment agency from being considered a whistleblower.
This makes no sense. Such a limited definition does not include contractors, yet there are existing Federal laws which explicitly protect whistleblowers who are contractors, such as the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) which protects them from retaliation if they testify before Congress.
posted by zarq at 12:13 PM on September 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Those would be Americans who are privileged and not subject to abuses by the state.
Absolutely! Compare the treatment of Chelsea Manning, a member of a marginalized class, to the treatment of Drake or Binney. They had their house raided, and charges either never filed or dropped. Sure, there were guns. There are always guns. But let's not pretend that privileged white men are the ones at risk of being shot, or being disappeared in gitmo. Edward Snowden does not get to hide behind the harm done to marginalized people, and say that he was legitimately scared someone might confuse him for a marginalized person and treat him accordingly.
That doesn't change the fact that a whistleblower only does a public good if it is bringing to light something that a democracy would want to change. While his revelations did boost support for privacy rights, it appears the bump was fairly temporary.
I understand that some people praise eco-terrorists for the extra step they're willing to take. That they are harming evil corporations. Because the corporations are evil, the criminal actions taken against them should be held harmless. I understand that some people praise Anonymous, because they are hacking for the public good. Nixon thought he was justified in getting people to break into Ellsberg's psychiatrist office to discredit him.
I understand that people think the NSA is doing enough harm that Edward Snowden was right to seek employment with BoozAllen with no intention to do the job he was hired to do, and every intention of gaining access to information that he couldn't otherwise get. I understand there is a philosophy of activism that condones that behavior.
But that is distinct from the logic that protecting whistleblowers is a public good.
posted by politikitty at 12:20 PM on September 20, 2016
Absolutely! Compare the treatment of Chelsea Manning, a member of a marginalized class, to the treatment of Drake or Binney. They had their house raided, and charges either never filed or dropped. Sure, there were guns. There are always guns. But let's not pretend that privileged white men are the ones at risk of being shot, or being disappeared in gitmo. Edward Snowden does not get to hide behind the harm done to marginalized people, and say that he was legitimately scared someone might confuse him for a marginalized person and treat him accordingly.
That doesn't change the fact that a whistleblower only does a public good if it is bringing to light something that a democracy would want to change. While his revelations did boost support for privacy rights, it appears the bump was fairly temporary.
I understand that some people praise eco-terrorists for the extra step they're willing to take. That they are harming evil corporations. Because the corporations are evil, the criminal actions taken against them should be held harmless. I understand that some people praise Anonymous, because they are hacking for the public good. Nixon thought he was justified in getting people to break into Ellsberg's psychiatrist office to discredit him.
I understand that people think the NSA is doing enough harm that Edward Snowden was right to seek employment with BoozAllen with no intention to do the job he was hired to do, and every intention of gaining access to information that he couldn't otherwise get. I understand there is a philosophy of activism that condones that behavior.
But that is distinct from the logic that protecting whistleblowers is a public good.
posted by politikitty at 12:20 PM on September 20, 2016
Such a limited definition does not include contractors,
My definition did not exclude contractors. I specifically said that as a Dell contractor, his behavior qualified as a whistleblower.
It is the intent he had when taking the job with BoozAllen that disqualifies him in my mind. He didn't discover a problem that needed to be brought to light. He was looking for additional dirt on a target he wanted to bring down.
posted by politikitty at 12:30 PM on September 20, 2016
My definition did not exclude contractors. I specifically said that as a Dell contractor, his behavior qualified as a whistleblower.
It is the intent he had when taking the job with BoozAllen that disqualifies him in my mind. He didn't discover a problem that needed to be brought to light. He was looking for additional dirt on a target he wanted to bring down.
posted by politikitty at 12:30 PM on September 20, 2016
It seems to me that our arguments ought to be about the information Snowden pilfered. Too bad the rabbit hole we've chosen to go down is the one where we decide whether he was a buffoon, or scoundrel, or a misunderstood hero. It's fertile ground for discussion, though. It appears that some ethical line is not as clear as we'd like it to be: blow your whistle and take your chance. I would bet on the side with the most expensive and tenacious lawyers.
In any case Snowden's character ought not to be the centerpiece of the event. Even if he should turn out to be the son of Satan the data itself merits our attention. We can chop off his hands later, if we are still in the mood.
The beat goes on. This is how they win.
posted by mule98J at 12:30 PM on September 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
In any case Snowden's character ought not to be the centerpiece of the event. Even if he should turn out to be the son of Satan the data itself merits our attention. We can chop off his hands later, if we are still in the mood.
The beat goes on. This is how they win.
posted by mule98J at 12:30 PM on September 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
That doesn't change the fact that a whistleblower only does a public good if it is bringing to light something that a democracy would want to change.
Increasing transparency about a government's unethical and/or illegal dealings is a public good. Period.
This is true whether or not a country's citizens think of those unethical or illegal acts as a positive or negative. Knowing how one's government treats its citizens and whether, when and how it acts extralegally is vitally important to maintaining a healthy democracy.
Corruption and secrecy are poisons to democratic governments. Democracies (especially ones based in part on capitalism) only function well when their citizens trust in them.
posted by zarq at 12:31 PM on September 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Increasing transparency about a government's unethical and/or illegal dealings is a public good. Period.
This is true whether or not a country's citizens think of those unethical or illegal acts as a positive or negative. Knowing how one's government treats its citizens and whether, when and how it acts extralegally is vitally important to maintaining a healthy democracy.
Corruption and secrecy are poisons to democratic governments. Democracies (especially ones based in part on capitalism) only function well when their citizens trust in them.
posted by zarq at 12:31 PM on September 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'd really like to hear the mental gymnastics behind someone believing that the same people who wrote this:
posted by entropicamericana at 12:42 PM on September 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
"[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."would be onboard with what the NSA is doing.
posted by entropicamericana at 12:42 PM on September 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
He didn't discover a problem that needed to be brought to light. He was looking for additional dirt on a target he wanted to bring down.
As Binney himself, who I think you would agree is an ethical whistleblower, says in the NPR link from my previous comment, Snowden had to collect information in order to credibly blow the whistle.
The problem here is that the whistleblower channel was broken. Let's assume for a moment Snowden is a patriot who wants to fix an unconstitutional wrong. He looks at previous attempts, sees that: a) the whistleblower process was broken, and the system treated whistleblowers as traitors and b) the internally obvious wrongs were discounted due to lack of evidence, that leaves him with a couple of lessons:
1) whistleblowing won't lead to a fix of unpatriotic, unconstitutional behavior,
2) only massive evidence disclosed outside of the whistleblowing channel has a chance.
So again, assuming patriotism is the operating principle for the moment, and he sees a great wrong, and he sees that whistleblowing within approved channels accomplishes nothing, what is the most patriotic thing to do?
Here's the excerpt of the interview with Binney, the 30 year career NSA veteran:
Q. The revelations of Snowden. Snowden comes out. When you hear about Snowden, what are you thinking? ...
A. The difference with us is we went out without any documentation. Edward Snowden went out with all the documentation in the world, so when they started publishing all this documentation, the U.S. government could no longer deny it. ...
Q. Snowden studied your cases.
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And what did he learn?
A. Well, he looked at them. I think he said that that helped him decide what he had to do, so I think that said he had to take out documentation and he had to leave the country. …
Q. A lot of what Snowden brings out is stuff that you were talking about all the way through. Is there anything new in what Snowden has revealed?
A. The extent to which the agreements are involved, the extent to which commercial activities, specifics more than anything else, the specifics of it. I mean, we knew this activity was going on and said so, but we didn't have the specifics that he did. He came out with documentation, so that made it here are the specifics of what they're doing, and so it was clarifying everything and making it irrefutable. ...
posted by zippy at 12:46 PM on September 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
As Binney himself, who I think you would agree is an ethical whistleblower, says in the NPR link from my previous comment, Snowden had to collect information in order to credibly blow the whistle.
The problem here is that the whistleblower channel was broken. Let's assume for a moment Snowden is a patriot who wants to fix an unconstitutional wrong. He looks at previous attempts, sees that: a) the whistleblower process was broken, and the system treated whistleblowers as traitors and b) the internally obvious wrongs were discounted due to lack of evidence, that leaves him with a couple of lessons:
1) whistleblowing won't lead to a fix of unpatriotic, unconstitutional behavior,
2) only massive evidence disclosed outside of the whistleblowing channel has a chance.
So again, assuming patriotism is the operating principle for the moment, and he sees a great wrong, and he sees that whistleblowing within approved channels accomplishes nothing, what is the most patriotic thing to do?
Here's the excerpt of the interview with Binney, the 30 year career NSA veteran:
Q. The revelations of Snowden. Snowden comes out. When you hear about Snowden, what are you thinking? ...
A. The difference with us is we went out without any documentation. Edward Snowden went out with all the documentation in the world, so when they started publishing all this documentation, the U.S. government could no longer deny it. ...
Q. Snowden studied your cases.
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And what did he learn?
A. Well, he looked at them. I think he said that that helped him decide what he had to do, so I think that said he had to take out documentation and he had to leave the country. …
Q. A lot of what Snowden brings out is stuff that you were talking about all the way through. Is there anything new in what Snowden has revealed?
A. The extent to which the agreements are involved, the extent to which commercial activities, specifics more than anything else, the specifics of it. I mean, we knew this activity was going on and said so, but we didn't have the specifics that he did. He came out with documentation, so that made it here are the specifics of what they're doing, and so it was clarifying everything and making it irrefutable. ...
posted by zippy at 12:46 PM on September 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
Why must there be mental gymnastics? Our goal isn't to provide a government Thomas Jefferson would consent to. He was cool with slavery! His opinion officially isn't sufficient for me to think it's a good or bad idea.
And to be clear, I'd love to get rid of the NSA. But I also live in a democracy. And when the people feel they can't be protected by the government, the natural result is violence and government instability. That's what happens in marginalized communities when the government goes too far. So if the people feel they need the NSA, then my job is to convince them they don't, not to commit criminal activity which polarizes the issue, making it more difficult to actually dismantle the NSA.
I don't fault Snowden for taking documentation, and giving it to people who could make sure the Feds couldn't destroy it in a raid. And I don't fault Ellsberg and Binney for being more sympathetic to Snowden than I am. Snowden should have learned from their experiences. But he had documentation safeguarded prior to the BoozAllen gig. It wasn't like he quit his job, and then thought "damn! I knew I forgot something!" And now that the information is out there, he should come home and let the American people decide whether or not his actions were criminal.
posted by politikitty at 1:11 PM on September 20, 2016
And to be clear, I'd love to get rid of the NSA. But I also live in a democracy. And when the people feel they can't be protected by the government, the natural result is violence and government instability. That's what happens in marginalized communities when the government goes too far. So if the people feel they need the NSA, then my job is to convince them they don't, not to commit criminal activity which polarizes the issue, making it more difficult to actually dismantle the NSA.
I don't fault Snowden for taking documentation, and giving it to people who could make sure the Feds couldn't destroy it in a raid. And I don't fault Ellsberg and Binney for being more sympathetic to Snowden than I am. Snowden should have learned from their experiences. But he had documentation safeguarded prior to the BoozAllen gig. It wasn't like he quit his job, and then thought "damn! I knew I forgot something!" And now that the information is out there, he should come home and let the American people decide whether or not his actions were criminal.
posted by politikitty at 1:11 PM on September 20, 2016
And now that the information is out there, he should come home and let the American people decide whether or not his actions were criminal.
Control-F "Espionage Act"
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:17 PM on September 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Control-F "Espionage Act"
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:17 PM on September 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Even given the overreach of the Espionage Act, it has been applied with wide amount of latitude given the political climate. Even if they aren't members of the jury, American public opinion will still have influence over the treatment Snowden gets once he returns to American soil.
His biggest risk is waiting too long, when he doesn't have the celebrity he currently enjoys.
posted by politikitty at 1:47 PM on September 20, 2016
His biggest risk is waiting too long, when he doesn't have the celebrity he currently enjoys.
posted by politikitty at 1:47 PM on September 20, 2016
"Absolutely! Compare the treatment of Chelsea Manning, a member of a marginalized class, to the treatment of Drake or Binney. They had their house raided, and charges either never filed or dropped. Sure, there were guns. There are always guns. But let's not pretend that privileged white men are the ones at risk of being shot, or being disappeared in gitmo. "
You do realize that Manning underwent a military trial as opposed to a civilian one?
posted by I-baLL at 1:51 PM on September 20, 2016
You do realize that Manning underwent a military trial as opposed to a civilian one?
posted by I-baLL at 1:51 PM on September 20, 2016
Sure, there were guns. There are always guns. But let's not pretend that privileged white men are the ones at risk of being shot
If you point a gun at someone, that gun can go off. It doesn't care if you are white.
posted by zippy at 2:51 PM on September 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
If you point a gun at someone, that gun can go off. It doesn't care if you are white.
posted by zippy at 2:51 PM on September 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
And to clarify, again, Binney went through the whistleblower channels, and then the FBI raided his home and "pointed a gun at [his] head."
This isn't vague "there are guns," this is a gun pointed at his head.
posted by zippy at 3:01 PM on September 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
This isn't vague "there are guns," this is a gun pointed at his head.
posted by zippy at 3:01 PM on September 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
That doesn't change the fact that a whistleblower only does a public good if it is bringing to light something that a democracy would want to change. While his revelations did boost support for privacy rights, it appears the bump was fairly temporary.
You know there was this whole organization with tons of resources - namely, a few branches of the US government - actively working to convince the US public not to worry about privacy rights, yes?
posted by eviemath at 3:16 AM on September 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
You know there was this whole organization with tons of resources - namely, a few branches of the US government - actively working to convince the US public not to worry about privacy rights, yes?
posted by eviemath at 3:16 AM on September 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean, by analogy, would you say that the fact that there is backlash against calls for not allowing slut shaming as an allowable legal defense in rape cases - that there isn't just steady, monotonically increasing support for not slut shaming rape victims - means that activism against slut shaming rape victims (*) is not a public good? That doesn't seem right.
(* which is also focused on changing what is currently legally allowed within a democracy)
posted by eviemath at 3:26 AM on September 21, 2016
(* which is also focused on changing what is currently legally allowed within a democracy)
posted by eviemath at 3:26 AM on September 21, 2016
losing celebrity status sounds worse
That's blatantly ignoring my actual point. As a celebrity, he has leverage to negotiate better treatment by the US government. Right now he will get the best possible deal from the US government. The political climate has led to radically variable sentences under the Espionage Act.
And it's not like he's safe now. He's basically trapped in Putin's Russia. Right now, his celebrity grants him the appearance of relative autonomy. When that fades, he's potentially a fantastic asset for Russia, either with or without his consent. Putin is practically openly having reporters assassinated for bringing attention to Russia's dirty dealings.
I'm not sure why staying overseas is considered a costless alternative to returning home.
And evie - You mention activism, which gets to the heart of my distinction. Whistleblowing is a check on the system. It's a form of policing by citizens. It protects the system as it currently expects to be, by bringing to light wrongdoing. Activism is about changing the system.
Both are patriotic actions. But they aren't the same. And I think the legal protections for a whistleblower should be more extensive than legal protections for activism. Because we've all agreed to the status quo. But for every well intentioned activist, there are also a bunch of nut jobs (bombing abortion clinics, for example). When you decide to break the law, with the goal of changing the law, you should deal with the consequences. If society decides that you are in the right, the natural consequence is prosecutors deciding not to prosecute, or judges giving lenient sentences. But part of deciding to change society, you should allow society to decide whether or not they want to change.
posted by politikitty at 12:27 PM on September 21, 2016
That's blatantly ignoring my actual point. As a celebrity, he has leverage to negotiate better treatment by the US government. Right now he will get the best possible deal from the US government. The political climate has led to radically variable sentences under the Espionage Act.
And it's not like he's safe now. He's basically trapped in Putin's Russia. Right now, his celebrity grants him the appearance of relative autonomy. When that fades, he's potentially a fantastic asset for Russia, either with or without his consent. Putin is practically openly having reporters assassinated for bringing attention to Russia's dirty dealings.
I'm not sure why staying overseas is considered a costless alternative to returning home.
And evie - You mention activism, which gets to the heart of my distinction. Whistleblowing is a check on the system. It's a form of policing by citizens. It protects the system as it currently expects to be, by bringing to light wrongdoing. Activism is about changing the system.
Both are patriotic actions. But they aren't the same. And I think the legal protections for a whistleblower should be more extensive than legal protections for activism. Because we've all agreed to the status quo. But for every well intentioned activist, there are also a bunch of nut jobs (bombing abortion clinics, for example). When you decide to break the law, with the goal of changing the law, you should deal with the consequences. If society decides that you are in the right, the natural consequence is prosecutors deciding not to prosecute, or judges giving lenient sentences. But part of deciding to change society, you should allow society to decide whether or not they want to change.
posted by politikitty at 12:27 PM on September 21, 2016
If the whistleblowing system actually allowed people to blow the whistle, I do not think we would have heard the names of Binney and Snowden. Certainly they wouldn't have had guns pointed at them (Binney) or felt compelled to flee the country (Snowden) just to present evidence of wrongdoing.
I think one could argue that what caused the activism, if that term applies here, was the corruption of the government. Not corruption as in spying in its own citizens, but corruption as in taking an independent investigative process on institutional wrongdoing and using it instead to prosecute the messengers who brought evidence of wrongdoing under the clear and simple terms of the program.
In Binney's case, his contact in the whistleblower program resigned in protest over the whistleblower program management turning evidence over to prosecute the whistleblower. When things are that screwed up, can we still say there was even, legitimately, a whistleblowing program at all?
I think that's the conclusion Snowden reached, that going to the press was the only way to actually blow the whistle. And in the US, we have a long history of the press acting as an outside-the-system check on governmental power. It is, if you will, the whistleblowing program that gets actual constitutional protection.
posted by zippy at 12:48 PM on September 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think one could argue that what caused the activism, if that term applies here, was the corruption of the government. Not corruption as in spying in its own citizens, but corruption as in taking an independent investigative process on institutional wrongdoing and using it instead to prosecute the messengers who brought evidence of wrongdoing under the clear and simple terms of the program.
In Binney's case, his contact in the whistleblower program resigned in protest over the whistleblower program management turning evidence over to prosecute the whistleblower. When things are that screwed up, can we still say there was even, legitimately, a whistleblowing program at all?
I think that's the conclusion Snowden reached, that going to the press was the only way to actually blow the whistle. And in the US, we have a long history of the press acting as an outside-the-system check on governmental power. It is, if you will, the whistleblowing program that gets actual constitutional protection.
posted by zippy at 12:48 PM on September 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think that distinction between whistleblowing and activism is fairly arbitrary and artificial. But that aside, I don't view "let's not have slut-shaming be a valid defense against rape" as being on the activism end of that activism versus system correction spectrum. We do not allow similar victim-blaming defenses for most other crimes, so that's hardly calling for a change in general legal theory, but instead calling for defense for sexual assault cases to be brought into line with standard practices in many other types of criminal trials.
I'm quite concerned about the framing of the debate about Snowden himself, additionally. I think that patriot (vs. enemy?) or hero (vs. bad guy?) are dangerous and unhelpful factors on which to judge either whistleblowing or activism in a (nominal, at least) democracy. You may just be using the term patriot because it has been coming up a lot vis-a-vis Snowden, politikitty, but I think its use in general illustrates a misunderstanding of the notion of democracy, and a troubling (implicit or explicit) nationalistic focus. The question we should be asking or debating instead is to what degree did Snowden's actions demonstrate responsible citizenship. A democracy is composed of citizens. If we're appealing to public opinion on public policy (eg. regarding the degree of privacy from government employees and representatives that people are entitled to), we're talking about a debate among people in their role as citizens. Their ethics (hero/bad guy), or the degree and type of sentiment they feel toward their fellow citizens as a group or toward the concept/abstract ideal of the particular nation (patriotism) is beside the point.
posted by eviemath at 3:09 PM on September 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm quite concerned about the framing of the debate about Snowden himself, additionally. I think that patriot (vs. enemy?) or hero (vs. bad guy?) are dangerous and unhelpful factors on which to judge either whistleblowing or activism in a (nominal, at least) democracy. You may just be using the term patriot because it has been coming up a lot vis-a-vis Snowden, politikitty, but I think its use in general illustrates a misunderstanding of the notion of democracy, and a troubling (implicit or explicit) nationalistic focus. The question we should be asking or debating instead is to what degree did Snowden's actions demonstrate responsible citizenship. A democracy is composed of citizens. If we're appealing to public opinion on public policy (eg. regarding the degree of privacy from government employees and representatives that people are entitled to), we're talking about a debate among people in their role as citizens. Their ethics (hero/bad guy), or the degree and type of sentiment they feel toward their fellow citizens as a group or toward the concept/abstract ideal of the particular nation (patriotism) is beside the point.
posted by eviemath at 3:09 PM on September 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
If civil disobedience can be said to be the theme, then a responsible citizen will act appropriately if a clear course of action can be worked out. For example, I considered draft resistors during the Vietnam War to be acting more in line with their (that's to say "my") beliefs when they chose jail rather than military service. I supposed that those who fled to Canada were doing about the same thing, but the effect was lessened--not because their actions were less courageous (that wasn't the issue), but because jail rather than military service seemed to me to be the proper staging of the protest. Courage was not a good metric, because not wanting to go to a stinking jungle to get killed seem to me to be the epitome of sanity. Even cowards, if such they were, can express reasonable views.
In this case, Snowden dumped the data to a fourth column in hopes of proper disclosure. His life, as he knew it, is over. Maybe he took a shot at finding a sort of anonymity, but I believe he realized that he'd never be out from under this. I don't believe putting him in jail would strengthen his statement: data speaks for itself. Now it's up to us, and I don't see that working out well. Disclosure and transparency are our best defenses against government abuse. Can it be that hubris and inertia render these useless?
Up to our asses in alligators, but we need to drain the swamp.
posted by mule98J at 6:53 PM on September 23, 2016
In this case, Snowden dumped the data to a fourth column in hopes of proper disclosure. His life, as he knew it, is over. Maybe he took a shot at finding a sort of anonymity, but I believe he realized that he'd never be out from under this. I don't believe putting him in jail would strengthen his statement: data speaks for itself. Now it's up to us, and I don't see that working out well. Disclosure and transparency are our best defenses against government abuse. Can it be that hubris and inertia render these useless?
Up to our asses in alligators, but we need to drain the swamp.
posted by mule98J at 6:53 PM on September 23, 2016
Is there a more inaccurate cliché than "young people don't care about privacy"? The numbers show the exact opposite. - Trever Timm
posted by jeffburdges at 1:49 PM on September 25, 2016
posted by jeffburdges at 1:49 PM on September 25, 2016
Thank you to former covert CIA ops officer @ValeriePlame for supporting #PardonSnowden. ..
posted by jeffburdges at 1:50 PM on September 25, 2016
posted by jeffburdges at 1:50 PM on September 25, 2016
Aside from OPM being criminally negligent, and multiple administration placing incompetent people in that office, there is also Moxie Marlinespike's pet theory that actually NSA facilitated the OPM hack by a foreign power, j_curiouser, via their backdoor in Juniper routers we know some foreign power repurposed.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:03 PM on September 25, 2016
posted by jeffburdges at 2:03 PM on September 25, 2016
The Washington Post is wrong: Edward Snowden should be pardoned
Just some background here for anyone who did not click the Intercept link :
There is a new film about Snowden by Oliver Stone's (previously, Trailer 1, Trailer 2), which together with Obama's term coming to an end has renewed the push by human rights organizations for a pardon.
There was a comically ridiculous congressional report attacking Snowden in an effort to contain the film's influence, but it got so thoroughly ripped apart that it likely did more for Snowden's cause in the public eye. I think this WaPo editorial is basically someone calling in a favor to get someone who can actually write to try to weaken the film's impact.
Just for fun, I'll conjecture that this WaPo editorial was indirectly "paid for" by government officials illegally leaking classified documents to the editorial writers, making it not so much WaPo calling for prosecution of a source, but WaPo calling for prosecution of a former source because a current and future source asked them to.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:07 PM on September 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Just some background here for anyone who did not click the Intercept link :
There is a new film about Snowden by Oliver Stone's (previously, Trailer 1, Trailer 2), which together with Obama's term coming to an end has renewed the push by human rights organizations for a pardon.
There was a comically ridiculous congressional report attacking Snowden in an effort to contain the film's influence, but it got so thoroughly ripped apart that it likely did more for Snowden's cause in the public eye. I think this WaPo editorial is basically someone calling in a favor to get someone who can actually write to try to weaken the film's impact.
Just for fun, I'll conjecture that this WaPo editorial was indirectly "paid for" by government officials illegally leaking classified documents to the editorial writers, making it not so much WaPo calling for prosecution of a source, but WaPo calling for prosecution of a former source because a current and future source asked them to.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:07 PM on September 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Five Corporations Now Dominate Our Privatized Intelligence Industry
posted by jeffburdges at 4:34 PM on September 25, 2016
posted by jeffburdges at 4:34 PM on September 25, 2016
Snowden disclosures helped reduce use of Patriot Act provision to acquire email records: Leaks in 2013 helped shift FBI away from using controversial Section 215 to acquire internet metadata, US justice department watchdog finds
posted by homunculus at 5:58 PM on October 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 5:58 PM on October 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
« Older It slowly sank below the surface. | Dance, Mantis! Dance for Michael's pleasure! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by zippy at 9:33 AM on September 18, 2016 [17 favorites]