|
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 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.
The State Department has said that it is fully legal, but it hasn't had a full challenge in the courts. You can't get a full challenge in the courts unless you can prove how your party is directly involved. Due to the secrecy of the program, it's hard for any outside groups to bring a claim that they are involved. However, if Snowden had stayed, he can challenge the legality of the program under the 4th Amendment (or any other conflicting legislation), since the legality of said program determines his protection under the various whistleblower protections we have. However, since he ran to China and Russia, he can no longer claim protection under whistleblower laws, and is now at the mercy of espionage and treason charges.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 12 2013 01:14 TheSwamp wrote:
He is a coward and asylum should have been done away with ages ago.
There are legitimate reasons to grant asylum to people, especially people who are actually political refugees running away from an unjust system.
Snowden is not one of those.
On August 12 2013 01:13 white_horse wrote: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.
The correct choice was first of all not to run away from the law, and second of all not run away from the law to China and then Russia. That is definitely a credible case for treason.
|
On August 12 2013 01:14 TheSwamp wrote:
He is a coward and asylum should have been done away with ages ago.
Yes he ran, but he did things most of us that are in the same position will never do in our lives if we live to be a hundred, simply because we are not brave enough to stand for something whether it's correct or not. Yet, he is the coward?
So basically the only chance there is now, is for another NSA employee to stand up, and start a lawsuit?
|
On August 12 2013 01:33 peacenl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 01:14 TheSwamp wrote:
He is a coward and asylum should have been done away with ages ago. Yes he ran, but he did things most of us that are in the same position will never do in our lives if we live to be a hundred, simply because we are not brave enough to stand for something whether it's correct or not. Yet, he is the coward? So basically the only chance there is now, is for another NSA employee to stand up, and start a lawsuit?
Unless someone goes to court and says something along the lines of "I did such and such because such and such is unconstitutional" then there will be no change to the US law.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 12 2013 01:33 peacenl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 01:14 TheSwamp wrote:
He is a coward and asylum should have been done away with ages ago. Yes he ran, but he did things most of us that are in the same position will never do in our lives if we live to be a hundred, simply because we are not brave enough to stand for something whether it's correct or not. Yet, he is the coward?
Running away from the law because you aren't willing to stand up for your position in court (rather than because you are being persecuted) is pretty cowardly, yes. And sharing secrets with China and Russia is probably treason.
|
The thing I'm wondering is where the cut off point lies in where his case becomes hopeless considering he already ran to these countries and talked with and probably gave all documents to the Russian intelligence services.
Suppose he would return tomorrow to the US. It's what both Obama and Putin prefer. But how strong would his case be at this point fighting the legality of the exposed program?
|
On August 12 2013 01:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 01:33 peacenl wrote:On August 12 2013 01:14 TheSwamp wrote:
He is a coward and asylum should have been done away with ages ago. Yes he ran, but he did things most of us that are in the same position will never do in our lives if we live to be a hundred, simply because we are not brave enough to stand for something whether it's correct or not. Yet, he is the coward? So basically the only chance there is now, is for another NSA employee to stand up, and start a lawsuit? Unless someone goes to court and says something along the lines of "I did such and such because such and such is unconstitutional" then there will be no change to the US law.
Even if they did this there is no precedent set in the past to say it would change US law. Just look at the Manning Trial. US law does not care for anything other than putting good men in prison for life.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 12 2013 01:46 peacenl wrote:
Suppose he would return tomorrow to the US. It's what both Obama and Putin prefer. But how strong would his case be at this point fighting the legality of the exposed program?
Realistically, pretty low. He might still be able to argue the legality of PRISM, but if he's guilty of treason he's going to prison for a long time regardless of the outcome of the case. Basically, he could have a legal team argue the position for him in order to have some lesser charges against him overturned, along with PRISM.
He's pretty much earned himself life in prison if he shared information with Russia and China though.
|
On August 12 2013 01:44 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 01:33 peacenl wrote:On August 12 2013 01:14 TheSwamp wrote:
He is a coward and asylum should have been done away with ages ago. Yes he ran, but he did things most of us that are in the same position will never do in our lives if we live to be a hundred, simply because we are not brave enough to stand for something whether it's correct or not. Yet, he is the coward? Running away from the law because you aren't willing to stand up for your position in court (rather than because you are being persecuted) is pretty cowardly, yes. And sharing secrets with China and Russia is probably treason.
This really depends on one's capability or willingness of looking past existing law and what is immoral or not? Disregarding sharing national secrets, because there is no way of telling.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 12 2013 01:49 peacenl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 01:44 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 01:33 peacenl wrote:On August 12 2013 01:14 TheSwamp wrote:
He is a coward and asylum should have been done away with ages ago. Yes he ran, but he did things most of us that are in the same position will never do in our lives if we live to be a hundred, simply because we are not brave enough to stand for something whether it's correct or not. Yet, he is the coward? Running away from the law because you aren't willing to stand up for your position in court (rather than because you are being persecuted) is pretty cowardly, yes. And sharing secrets with China and Russia is probably treason. This really depends on one's capability of looking past existing law and what is immoral or not?
The law is not based on conjecture. If you disagree with the law and you are still willing to break it, you should accept the punishment for doing so.
On August 12 2013 01:48 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 01:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2013 01:33 peacenl wrote:On August 12 2013 01:14 TheSwamp wrote:
He is a coward and asylum should have been done away with ages ago. Yes he ran, but he did things most of us that are in the same position will never do in our lives if we live to be a hundred, simply because we are not brave enough to stand for something whether it's correct or not. Yet, he is the coward? So basically the only chance there is now, is for another NSA employee to stand up, and start a lawsuit? Unless someone goes to court and says something along the lines of "I did such and such because such and such is unconstitutional" then there will be no change to the US law. Even if they did this there is no precedent set in the past to say it would change US law. Just look at the Manning Trial. US law does not care for anything other than putting good men in prison for life.
Manning was a soldier tried by a court martial - quite different from Snowden, a civilian. The only thing that could be considered unjust is his pre-trial imprisonment. He wasn't sentenced for any crimes that he did not actually commit.
|
On August 12 2013 01:48 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 01:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2013 01:33 peacenl wrote:On August 12 2013 01:14 TheSwamp wrote:
He is a coward and asylum should have been done away with ages ago. Yes he ran, but he did things most of us that are in the same position will never do in our lives if we live to be a hundred, simply because we are not brave enough to stand for something whether it's correct or not. Yet, he is the coward? So basically the only chance there is now, is for another NSA employee to stand up, and start a lawsuit? Unless someone goes to court and says something along the lines of "I did such and such because such and such is unconstitutional" then there will be no change to the US law. Even if they did this there is no precedent set in the past to say it would change US law. Just look at the Manning Trial. US law does not care for anything other than putting good men in prison for life.
It seems US government rather catches a few terrorist crooks at the cost of billions of Dollars, while fearmongering its citizens and disregrading their privacy, than to advance the race into space further and increase its powerhold on the world. Something that will come to bite them in the ass after a while, I should think.
|
On August 12 2013 01:29 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 01:14 TheSwamp wrote:
He is a coward and asylum should have been done away with ages ago. There are legitimate reasons to grant asylum to people, especially people who are actually political refugees running away from an unjust system. Snowden is not one of those. Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 01:13 white_horse wrote: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. The correct choice was first of all not to run away from the law, and second of all not run away from the law to China and then Russia. That is definitely a credible case for treason.
I'm amazed at people criticizing him for chosing China and Russia. Where do you want him to go ? China and Russia are the two countries that actually stand up to US and its bullshit - sadly. Sure, it would have been better to go to Europe, because we're nice and all, but considering some european countries prevented a presidential plane to pass in their airspace just to peak in it, I'm pretty sure they would have instantly put him in a plane back to the States.
And then he would have become another Bradley Manning.
|
Snowden is not guilty untill there has been a trial, thats how the justice system works
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 12 2013 03:13 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 01:29 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2013 01:14 TheSwamp wrote:
He is a coward and asylum should have been done away with ages ago. There are legitimate reasons to grant asylum to people, especially people who are actually political refugees running away from an unjust system. Snowden is not one of those. On August 12 2013 01:13 white_horse wrote: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. The correct choice was first of all not to run away from the law, and second of all not run away from the law to China and then Russia. That is definitely a credible case for treason. I'm amazed at people criticizing him for chosing China and Russia. Where do you want him to go ? China and Russia are the two countries that actually stand up to US and its bullshit - sadly. Sure, it would have been better to go to Europe, because we're nice and all, but considering some european countries prevented a presidential plane to pass in their airspace just to peak in it, I'm pretty sure they would have instantly put him in a plane back to the States. And then he would have become another Bradley Manning.
He should've stayed in the US and stood trial. That way he would have had a trial for leaking, and a legitimate case for whistleblower status.
Right now, more than anything he is a traitor. He would probably be convicted of treason if he were sent back.
|
The fact that the US is really upset about Russia granting him an asylum is beyond hypocritical. As if the US wouldn't have been frothing at their mouths granting a Russian "spy" an asylum the first chance they'd get.
The legality of what NSA has been doing is just not there, it is ILLEGAL. Trying to get this whistleblower convicted is just adding insult to injury..
|
On August 12 2013 00:53 LegalLord 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. 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.
So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM?
That sounds... bizarre to say the least.
|
On August 12 2013 03:32 LegalLord wrote:
He should've stayed in the US and stood trial. That way he would have had a trial for leaking, and a legitimate case for whistleblower status.
Right now, more than anything he is a traitor. He would probably be convicted of treason if he were sent back.
You saw what just happened to Manning right? While one can still somewhat question if all he leaked was neccessary, getting over 100 years in prison is not exactly fair, imo.
In these cases you can't really trust the government/courts to be on your side as a whistleblower. You see the government wants these leaks to end, so they will convict them with insanely hard-hitting sentences. It's probably the smart thing to run away. He has already sacrificed a life with his family and in his home country. Calling him a coward (which many of those who share your opinion calls him) is truly misguided.
|
protest, vote ppl in who'll change things (what obama promised to do but lied).
but average person doesnt care about stuff unless its about race or a celebrity.
|
On August 12 2013 03:42 JimSocks wrote:
protest, vote ppl in who'll change things (what obama promised to do but lied).
but average person doesnt care about stuff unless its about race or a celebrity.
There's nobody to vote.
It's funny because there's a lot of "average people" who don't want the tyrannical and oppressive government to be looking after them when it comes to education or healthcare or taking their guns, but when it comes to government looking after them in the most literal meaning of the term, that's perfectly fine.
Seriously this was ONE case you'd expect the right to go crazy about and actually contribute to something positive for once, and all we ever heard were occasional isolated whimpers and cop-out reactions.
|
On August 12 2013 03:36 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 00:53 LegalLord wrote: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. 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. So you're telling me that Snowden being tried for treason is the ONLY legal mechanism to challenge the constitutionality/legality of PRISM? That sounds... bizarre to say the least.
It's the most direct way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
