Civil liberties thread

[neoplacebo]

A camera is no match for a can of spray paint if you can get physical access to the camera. Hammers work as well.

[Vrede too]

I've never been a fan of Assange nor any of the other Daniel Ellsberg wannabes. To plagiarize Lloyd Benson in regard to Dan Quayle... Mr. Assange, you may think that because you claim to be a journalist, that your theft of classified information makes you like Ellsberg. Well, I knew Ellsberg; Ellsberg was an honorable person I admired; and you - are no Daniel Ellsberg. And as to the "journalist" claim, you're no Walter Cronkite, either.

One court disagrees with you. It also somewhat weakens the criminal case that WikiLeaks participated in the theft beforehand.

In Rejecting DNC Lawsuit Against WikiLeaks, Judge Strongly Defended First Amendment Rights Of Journalists

United States District JudgeJohn George Koeltl is a Clinton appointee. "In 1973-74 Koeltl served as an Assistant Special Prosecutor for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force ..."

[O Really]

One court disagrees with you.

Would't be the first time.

[Vrede too]

One court disagrees with you.

Wouldn't be the first time.

Same here.

[O Really]

"Edward Snowden says he would like to return to the US if he is guaranteed a fair trial"

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/17/politics ... air-trial/

I'm thinking his definition of "fair" is the same as Trump's.

[Vrede too]

"Edward Snowden says he would like to return to the US if he is guaranteed a fair trial"

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/17/politics ... air-trial/

I'm thinking his definition of "fair" is the same as Trump's.

Why are you "thinking"?

"... if I'm going to spend the rest of my life in prison, the one bottom-line demand that we all have to agree to is that at least I get a fair trial. And that's the one thing the government has refused to guarantee because they won't provide access to what's called a public interest defense."

Nothing ambiguous there.

That's not a guarantee that this defense will prevail, he just wants the ability to present it and understands that he'll likely still lose. Of course, the government can't tolerate even the possibility that its unconstitutional spying will be proven to be contrary to the public interest.

I'm familiar with this situation. Antinuclear, tree hugger and peace activists are routinely denied the ability to present what's also called a 'preventing a greater harm defense'. When a free speech supporting judge does allow such a defense, we often win acquittal.

Why are you afraid of this defense being offered?

[O Really]

U.S. sues Edward Snowden over new book, cites non-disclosure agreements
Reuters Reuters 47 minutes ago


Here's an idea - how about the spying traitorous media ho keeps his mouth shut for 10 years of so and then we can talk about a trial.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/us-s ... 44193.html

[O Really]

Why are you afraid of this defense being offered?

He can go with whatever defense likes, including the old "Devil made me do it." But he doesn't get to try it out for free before trial.

[Vrede too]

He can go with whatever defense likes, including the old "Devil made me do it." But he doesn't get to try it out for free before trial.

:?:

His public interest defense has been presented by him and others since the day after his patriotic revelations began. The only question is whether he can do so at trial and no, as of now he can't go with whatever defense he likes. That's the issue.

The book is a different matter. I would buy it if allowed to, but I get that the govt will try to enforce an NDA here and either prevent US sales or seize US profits. Not much to be done about that unless the NDA is somehow found to be unconstitutional or illegal.

Can you do me a favor while you're still in Canada?

[O Really]

So Snowden is charged under the Espionage Act, which does no accept "public interest" as a legal defence. Snowden can say it, but it's like the "ignorance of the law is no defence" meaning that while ignorance may be the best reason for violating the law, it's not acceptable as a legal defence. So by insisting on using "public interest" as a defence, he'd have to either (a) get new charges under some other law, essentially dropping the current charges; or (b) get the Espionage law changed. Nagonnahappen.

[Vrede too]

So Snowden is charged under the Espionage Act, which does no accept "public interest" as a legal defence....

Convenient that.

[O Really]

So Snowden is charged under the Espionage Act, which does no accept "public interest" as a legal defence....

Convenient that.

There are probably a lot of other laws they could use but the Espionage Act makes it illegal ..." To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies." Seems to fit. While we're charging people, though, I'd like to see some charges for the NSA people who gave a contractor free run of the house with little supervision.

[Vrede too]

There are probably a lot of other laws they could use but the Espionage Act makes it illegal ..." To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies." Seems to fit....

Sorry I was unclear. I meant convenient that the Espionage Act does not accept "public interest" as a legal defense. His being charged with violating it is predictable and not worth my bitching about.

That's not to say that I agree with the charge. What Snowden did in sharing with responsible journalists with patriotic intent is a far cry from sharing with the USSR for pay or Putin for hotel rights and election assistance.

[neoplacebo]

So Snowden is charged under the Espionage Act, which does no accept "public interest" as a legal defence....

Convenient that.

There are probably a lot of other laws they could use but the Espionage Act makes it illegal ..." To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies." Seems to fit. While we're charging people, though, I'd like to see some charges for the NSA people who gave a contractor free run of the house with little supervision.

I realize that you've not quoted the entire statute, but I don't see how what Snowden did "interfere(s) with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States" or how what he did promotes the success of its enemies; as far as I know, the NSA and CIA are not part of the military. I do agree that it's quite not smart, and possibly crazy, to hire contractors to do this kind of work. Whoever is responsible for the decision to do that should be investigated for being stupid. In general, private contractors are paid better than government workers for doing the same work; just like the Halliburton cooks and construction workers were paid likely three times what active duty military people would be paid for the same work during the Iraq fiasco.

[Vrede too]

The National Security Agency (NSA) is a national-level intelligence agency of the United States Department of Defense, under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence.

That said, I think it’s an outrageous fallacy to assume that “success of the armed forces of the United States” is always in the "public interest”. Thus, the rationale for excluding a "public interest" defense from Espionage Act trials is unsupported.

[neoplacebo]

The National Security Agency (NSA) is a national-level intelligence agency of the United States Department of Defense, under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence.

That said, I think it’s an outrageous fallacy to assume that “success of the armed forces of the United States” is always in the "public interest”. Thus, the rationale for excluding a "public interest" defense from Espionage Act trials is unsupported.

The head of the US military is the president. Then comes the Secretary of Defense. After that, the chairman of the JCS is the top military officer in the country. I don't believe NSA or CIA are anywhere in the military chain of command and as far as I know, workers at either place, unless actually in the military, are not subject to the military chain of command or the UCMJ.

[Vrede too]

The head of the US military is the president. Then comes the Secretary of Defense. After that, the chairman of the JCS is the top military officer in the country. I don't believe NSA or CIA are anywhere in the military chain of command and as far as I know, workers at either place, unless actually in the military, are not subject to the military chain of command or the UCMJ.

Yeah, I'm clueless as to the definitions of "armed forces of the United States”, "military chain of command" and "UCMJ". All I know is that the NSA is part of DoD. Thanks.

[O Really]

A lot of the work of NSA is done by military units, even though direct NSA employees and management are government civilians. But if you screw up what NSA is doing, then you screw up what the military is doing, ergo...

[Vrede too]

A lot of the work of NSA is done by military units, even though direct NSA employees and management are government civilians. But if you screw up what NSA is doing, then you screw up what the military is doing, ergo...

... you are a patriot and humanitarian acting in the "public interest”.

[neoplacebo]

The head of the US military is the president. Then comes the Secretary of Defense. After that, the chairman of the JCS is the top military officer in the country. I don't believe NSA or CIA are anywhere in the military chain of command and as far as I know, workers at either place, unless actually in the military, are not subject to the military chain of command or the UCMJ.

Yeah, I'm clueless as to the definitions of "armed forces of the United States”, "military chain of command" and "UCMJ". All I know is that the NSA is part of DoD. Thanks.

I'm no expert on the exact organizational arrangement but I think what I posted is correct; UCMJ is the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a totally separate legal system that members of the military are subject to; regular Constitutional rights are not recognized under this system.