|
On August 12 2013 00:08 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +If snowden stayed, he would be trialed for information breech. Which would make the court case be about the validity of what NSA is doing. I think that's incredibly wishful thinking. If he'd have never left they would never have let the information about this getting out in the first place.
Its how every single massive change in America started and eventually came to pass. It all starts with judges and lawyers bringing to light flaws in the system and then fighting over it until it becomes the new law.
Snowden had a chance to legally start the conversation. He didn't, and that's a shame, because if he ever comes back the only legal discussion is "did you sell government secrets or not?" and all the prosecutors would have to do is show that China/Russia knows something about the US that they shouldn't know about (and both countries do know something they "shouldn't" know about) in which case Snowden is now screwed.
The only legal action that can be taken is charging him with treason. Had he stayed, the charges would remain to be about information breech to the local media, and the legality of the information broached.
|
On August 12 2013 00:32 peacenl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 00:30 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 00:27 peacenl wrote:
While legal ways sound perfect, some people in this thread don't seem to realize that once you sign with such an organization, they become even more immune for their employees screwing them over when they wish to reveal misdoings or internal policies. The larger encompassing problem is, you don't know such thing until you sign that very contract.
I've done a lot of research on this, and it basically boils down to the point where he didnt have any other choice other than to look away and do nothing but to allow complete secrecy of law breaking. If you agree to break the law, even if the law is unjust, you should agree to be punished for doing so. Did MLK leave the United States to avoid having charges filed against him for his protests? No, he did not. And he would actually have groups that would grant him asylum based on moral grounds, rather than Snowden who only gets asylum as a "screw you" to the US. Also, PRISM is legal under the Patriot Act. It's not under European law.
Well Snowden isn't European, now is he?
|
On August 12 2013 00:32 peacenl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 00:30 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 00:27 peacenl wrote:
While legal ways sound perfect, some people in this thread don't seem to realize that once you sign with such an organization, they become even more immune for their employees screwing them over when they wish to reveal misdoings or internal policies. The larger encompassing problem is, you don't know such thing until you sign that very contract.
I've done a lot of research on this, and it basically boils down to the point where he didnt have any other choice other than to look away and do nothing but to allow complete secrecy of law breaking. If you agree to break the law, even if the law is unjust, you should agree to be punished for doing so. Did MLK leave the United States to avoid having charges filed against him for his protests? No, he did not. And he would actually have groups that would grant him asylum based on moral grounds, rather than Snowden who only gets asylum as a "screw you" to the US. Also, PRISM is legal under the Patriot Act. It's not under European law.
And wouldn't it have been great to have a trial where Snowden is being questioned for why he was telling the media these secrets and he points out that it's illegal in Europe to do what he did.
Except now he won't be asked that since he will now only be trialed for treason.
Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
Since he ran, the courts will only ask if russia/china has information on the US.
|
[QUOTE]On August 12 2013 00:34 LegalLord wrote:
[QUOTE]On August 12 2013 00:32 peacenl wrote:
[QUOTE]On August 12 2013 00:30 LegalLord wrote:
[QUOTE]On August 12 2013 00:27 peacenl wrote:
Also, PRISM is legal under the Patriot Act.[/QUOTE]
It's not under European law.[/QUOTE]
Well Snowden isn't European, now is he?[/QUOTE]
Aren't we confusing things now. Firstly, you make a statement about PRISM being legal, then I say it's not legal in Europe, then you reply with Snowden not doing legal things.
|
On August 12 2013 00:36 peacenl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 00:34 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 00:32 peacenl wrote:On August 12 2013 00:30 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 00:27 peacenl wrote:
Also, PRISM is legal under the Patriot Act. It's not under European law. Well Snowden isn't European, now is he? Aren't we confusing things now. Firstly, you make a statement about PRISM being legal, then I say it's not legal in Europe, then you reply with Snowden not doing legal things.
It's legal in the only country that it matters for it to be legal in regards to the Snowden trial.
Leaking classified government documents and the like is what he's being charged for. Not for PRISM.
What does European law have to do with anything in the first place?
|
On August 12 2013 00:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 00:08 Qikz wrote:If snowden stayed, he would be trialed for information breech. Which would make the court case be about the validity of what NSA is doing. I think that's incredibly wishful thinking. If he'd have never left they would never have let the information about this getting out in the first place. Its how every single massive change in America started and eventually came to pass. It all starts with judges and lawyers bringing to light flaws in the system and then fighting over it until it becomes the new law. Snowden had a chance to legally start the conversation. He didn't, and that's a shame, because if he ever comes back the only legal discussion is "did you sell government secrets or not?" and all the prosecutors would have to do is show that China/Russia knows something about the US that they shouldn't know about (and both countries do know something they "shouldn't" know about) in which case Snowden is now screwed. The only legal action that can be taken is charging him with treason. Had he stayed, the charges would remain to be about information breech to the local media, and the legality of the information broached.
Had he stayed, he actually would have disappeared to never be heard from again.
|
On August 12 2013 00:38 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 00:36 peacenl wrote:On August 12 2013 00:34 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 00:32 peacenl wrote:On August 12 2013 00:30 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 00:27 peacenl wrote:
Also, PRISM is legal under the Patriot Act. It's not under European law. Well Snowden isn't European, now is he? Aren't we confusing things now. Firstly, you make a statement about PRISM being legal, then I say it's not legal in Europe, then you reply with Snowden not doing legal things. It's legal in the only country that it matters for it to be legal in regards to the Snowden trial. Leaking classified government documents and the like is what he's being charged for. Not for PRISM. What does European law have to do with anything in the first place?
Wouldn't it be logical that what the leaked information is about, matters for the whistleblower to recieve protection against prosecution or not. Particularly, the legality of such a program in other countries in where the the PRISM program is used, since European law prescribes that a person may not be investigated (even in the majority of aggregated information types) without prior court order or reasonable suspicion.
|
On August 12 2013 00:47 Nick_54 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 00:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2013 00:08 Qikz wrote:If snowden stayed, he would be trialed for information breech. Which would make the court case be about the validity of what NSA is doing. I think that's incredibly wishful thinking. If he'd have never left they would never have let the information about this getting out in the first place. Its how every single massive change in America started and eventually came to pass. It all starts with judges and lawyers bringing to light flaws in the system and then fighting over it until it becomes the new law. Snowden had a chance to legally start the conversation. He didn't, and that's a shame, because if he ever comes back the only legal discussion is "did you sell government secrets or not?" and all the prosecutors would have to do is show that China/Russia knows something about the US that they shouldn't know about (and both countries do know something they "shouldn't" know about) in which case Snowden is now screwed. The only legal action that can be taken is charging him with treason. Had he stayed, the charges would remain to be about information breech to the local media, and the legality of the information broached. Had he stayed, he actually would have disappeared to never be heard from again.
No, probably not. The US doesn't really do that all too often, and they especially don't do that with civilians. There are rights under the Constitution that have to be respected, and doing something unconstitutional is really not worth the backlash.
Manning was not a civilian, if that's what you're alluding to. It also didn't help that Assange was the more interesting media story.
On August 12 2013 00:48 peacenl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 00:38 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 00:36 peacenl wrote:On August 12 2013 00:34 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 00:32 peacenl wrote:On August 12 2013 00:30 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 00:27 peacenl wrote:
Also, PRISM is legal under the Patriot Act. It's not under European law. Well Snowden isn't European, now is he? Aren't we confusing things now. Firstly, you make a statement about PRISM being legal, then I say it's not legal in Europe, then you reply with Snowden not doing legal things. It's legal in the only country that it matters for it to be legal in regards to the Snowden trial. Leaking classified government documents and the like is what he's being charged for. Not for PRISM. What does European law have to do with anything in the first place? Wouldn't it be logical that what the leaked information is about, matters for the whistleblower to recieve protection against prosecution or not. Particularly, the legality of such a program in other countries in where the NSA operates, since European law prescribes that a person may not be investigated (even in aggregated data) without prior court order or reasonable suspicion.
That's the thing though; nobody wants to shield him for moral reasons. Are Bolivia, Venezuela, and Russia considered to be especially open and freedom-friendly governments? Or is it more likely that they agree to shield Snowden because they have a bone to pick with the US? I think the answer is very obvious.
|
On August 12 2013 00:47 Nick_54 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 00:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2013 00:08 Qikz wrote:If snowden stayed, he would be trialed for information breech. Which would make the court case be about the validity of what NSA is doing. I think that's incredibly wishful thinking. If he'd have never left they would never have let the information about this getting out in the first place. Its how every single massive change in America started and eventually came to pass. It all starts with judges and lawyers bringing to light flaws in the system and then fighting over it until it becomes the new law. Snowden had a chance to legally start the conversation. He didn't, and that's a shame, because if he ever comes back the only legal discussion is "did you sell government secrets or not?" and all the prosecutors would have to do is show that China/Russia knows something about the US that they shouldn't know about (and both countries do know something they "shouldn't" know about) in which case Snowden is now screwed. The only legal action that can be taken is charging him with treason. Had he stayed, the charges would remain to be about information breech to the local media, and the legality of the information broached. Had he stayed, he actually would have disappeared to never be heard from again.
i cant believe people actually think this is true
|
On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM.
If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions and focusing the debate on whether he committed treason or not seems like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public.
In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing. The odds of him not being convicted are basically zero, and the odds of the trial influencing legal status of PRISM are just as bad.
|
On August 12 2013 00:47 Nick_54 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 00:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2013 00:08 Qikz wrote:If snowden stayed, he would be trialed for information breech. Which would make the court case be about the validity of what NSA is doing. I think that's incredibly wishful thinking. If he'd have never left they would never have let the information about this getting out in the first place. Its how every single massive change in America started and eventually came to pass. It all starts with judges and lawyers bringing to light flaws in the system and then fighting over it until it becomes the new law. Snowden had a chance to legally start the conversation. He didn't, and that's a shame, because if he ever comes back the only legal discussion is "did you sell government secrets or not?" and all the prosecutors would have to do is show that China/Russia knows something about the US that they shouldn't know about (and both countries do know something they "shouldn't" know about) in which case Snowden is now screwed. The only legal action that can be taken is charging him with treason. Had he stayed, the charges would remain to be about information breech to the local media, and the legality of the information broached. Had he stayed, he actually would have disappeared to never be heard from again.
Prove it. Either give us good examples of this happening to civilians or gtfo.
|
On August 12 2013 00:51 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM. If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public. In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero.
Courts are only allowed to interpret the law through a legal case. Otherwise, that would give them arbitrary power to change laws as they wish.
|
On August 12 2013 00:51 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM. If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public. In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero.
without snowden noones gonna bother bringing it up in court though
also im not too big on american law, but if they could prove prism was unconstitutional couldnt the supreme court shut it down?
|
On August 12 2013 00:54 Forikorder wrote:
also im not too big on american law, but if they could prove prism was unconstitutional couldnt the supreme court shut it down?
If that is somehow relevant to the case, yes.
|
On August 12 2013 00:54 Forikorder wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 00:51 Talin wrote:On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM. If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public. In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero. without snowden noones gonna bother bringing it up in court though also im not too big on american law, but if they could prove prism was unconstitutional couldnt the supreme court shut it down?
It's not that nobody will bring it up, but Snowden's trial for whatever they charged him with if he stayed would have been the PERFECT avenue for determining the legality of the law. If it's illegal, Snowden would be protected under whistleblowing laws.
Now we have a mesh of lawsuits that simply nip around the edges of the program(s).
|
Would they have talked about the legality had he stayed? I'm afraid not, based on this:
- They have admitted the existence of the PRISM project as described by Snowden and state that is fully legal;
- There are no massive amounts of lawsuits from US organizations, concerned citizens and the like;
- The US governmenent seems to be concerned exclusively with his trial, not with the legality of what is revealed.
Sorry, to take down your hopes but even if he would have stayed, it wouldn't have mattered anyway, he didn't stand a chance as the NSA would have used an array of expert lawyers that would make minced meat out of him.
It bothers a lot of citizens, simply because it's our own money being put in programs such as PRISM, while in th end they act like arrogant pricks when it comes to our personal rights.
If you look at the relation between US and other countries, a lot becomes clear. Would the US mingle with rising Russia and China. Not so much as it mingles with EU policy, even to the point where it seems that EU politicans are afraid of the US. Even though some countries as Germany are ramping up privacy arrangements.
|
On August 12 2013 01:01 peacenl wrote:
Would they have talked about the legality had he stayed? I'm afraid not, based on this:
- They have admitted the existence of the PRISM project as described by Snowden and state that is fully legal;
- There are no massive amounts of lawsuits from US organizations, concerned citizens and the like;
- The US governmenent seems to be concerned exclusively with his trial, not with the legality of what is revealed.
Sorry, to take down your hopes but even if he would have stayed, it wouldn't have mattered anyway, he didn't stand a chance.
If the law is unconstitutional, his actions might have been far more meaningful if he had stayed (legal but unconstitutional = not legal). He would have had some protection and the program could have been stopped. As it stands, he talked to Russia and China and he might be guilty of treason for doing so.
|
On August 12 2013 00:54 Forikorder wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 00:51 Talin wrote:On August 12 2013 00:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Had he stayed, the courts would talk about the legality of PRISM. If PRISM is illegal or potentially illegal, shouldn't courts talk about the legality of PRISM regardless of Snowden's whereabouts? Snowden personally isn't relevant to the case at all. In fact, focusing on his individual transgressions seems more like a way to obfuscate the relevant topic and misdirect the public. In fact if PRISM-like surveillance is indeed legal in the US - as it appears to be - then it seems like, then it goes without saying that he broke the law by uncovering classified information about an entirely legal government project. Him staying there would have contributed nothing, and the odds of him not being convicted are basically zero. without snowden noones gonna bother bringing it up in court though also im not too big on american law, but if they could prove prism was unconstitutional couldnt the supreme court shut it down?
Supreme court can only make decisions based on cases brought before them.
|
1019 Posts
People need to stop mentioning 250 year old benjamin franklin quotes. There wasn't an entire community of foreigners trying to kill American citizens back then nor did people like franklin have any idea of the scale of weapons and creativity some people have in order to carry out their wishes.
Also, it's hilariously ironic and hypocritical that snowden would choose first to stay in places like china, then russia and yammer on about civil liberties in the US. If americans are whining about privacy issues and scared that the US government is listening in onto their gossip about nancy the next door neighbor, move to beijing. Better yet, move to ecuador or moscow and leave our evil, Amerika Police State.
Third, a lot of people here are talking about how snowden is a traitor because he sold (or potentially could sell) government secrets to Russia. Well guess what? He doesn't really have a choice. If Russian authorities wanted take his laptops to mine them, they would have done that very easily. He wasn't in any kind of position to protest or resist. No one knows what happened in the several weeks he sat in the airport but imo russia wouldn't let a gold pot like him get away when he just walked onto their turf. Letting russia know how the americans gather foreign intelligence? That sounds like a national security issue to me.
|
He is a coward and asylum should have been done away with ages ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
