Is Snowden guilty of espionage? - Page 24

On August 12 2013 11:10 KnowNothing wrote:


In my opinion it is possible to resolve problems to an extent using the judicial system. However, that is only possible if the issues themselves are the central focus of the hearing, rather than the persecution or absolution of an individual.

On August 12 2013 10:46 Warlock40 wrote:


It appears that you have very little understanding of how American courts operate. The adversarial system and respect for precedent, not to mention the highly skilled and independent background of each judge, ensure that trials are as unbiased and fair as possible.

(Yes, there are some unfortunate kinks in the system; for example, you cannot file claims against the government for illegal surveillance policies unless you can prove that you are clearly a victim of those policies, but you can't prove those policies if they are covert in the first place; however, at least the government has been doing more and more to provide greater oversight.)

Why should the issues be the central focus instead of the problems when trying to resolve the problems under the judicial system?

The judicial system is not there to determine in the abstract the value of a particular law. That's what the congress, the president, and the democratic system is for. The judicial system is there only when someone has been wronged. This isn't "persecution or absolution" - it's prosecution, in the name of justice.

On August 12 2013 16:20 Joedaddy wrote:


Who are you to tell me (or anyone else) what I (they) can and can't quote? I served in the USAF for six years during Operations Irqai Freedom and Enduring Freedom. I put my country and everything I love about it before my personal convenience and safety. I have earned the right to quote Ben Franklin and talk about this NSA program any which way I please.

I don't think America is evil, or a police state. However, this NSA program is wrong. I'm all for national security, but I will not simply trust a federal government with this type of program. If we, as a nation, are in so much fear that we would sacrifice such basic freedoms then they are winning the war. I couldn't even look at myself in the mirror if I was such a coward.

On August 12 2013 08:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Its the limits set on Judges and the Supreme Court in order to prevent them from becoming tyrants.

The judicial system is limited to only what is presented to them; they are not allowed to actively change laws "just because."

So while Judges aren't allowed to simply say "NSA is unconstitutional" they are also prevented from simply saying "Pro-Life is automatically law."

And yes, there is a big difference between "leaking to the media" and "leaking to enemy powers."

Its a lot easier to accuse someone who ran off to a country after revealing secrets of treason than it is to accuse someone of treason who stays in US land and publicly talking to US citizens. It's not treason to "divulge" to fellow Americans. For them to prove he is guilty of treason for talking to Americans they would have to prove that he was in talks with country X.

Now, Snowden is not required for the judicial system to go after the NSA. What is required, is someone to make the accusation and argument that the NSA is unconstitutional. That person needs evidence of the unconstitutional actions, to get that evidence he needs either the NSA database or a witness giving his testimony (someone like Snowden).

IE; all the courts needs is an accuser and evidence. The only evidence we currently have is Snowden unless you think the current NSA guys will make the public statement against NSA.

The courts wouldn't be changing the laws "just because", they would be striking down or clarifying the extents of the law because the law is unconstitutional or being applied more liberally than intended.

Over here, and I believe in most European countries, there's a public institution that deals with issues like these. When some government-induced scandal breaks out or a government official is somehow incriminated, that institution has the right to investigate by questioning every government official or employee involved and requesting access to all the information pertaining to the case that the government is obligated to provide. This is how the evidence is obtained. They then present their findings before the appropriate court, thus initiating the legal case.

It just seems bizarre that, unless an individual steps up and delivers all the evidence, there is no investigative body that will act at the slightest hint of government behaving illegally or unconstitutionally. Relying on individuals to personally bear the full burden of cases like these is a very weak and unreliable mechanic.

Especially so in the environment when these individuals are relentlessly persecuted by the government. No matter what you may think of the validity of Manning or Snowden's whistleblowing, their combined fates that played out in such a brief time span are bound to discourage any potential whistleblowers with a valid case in the near future.

Oh, indeed. The U.S. judicial system is the epitome of integrity; we all know that apple invented the smooth-edged rectangle.

Consider the case of RIM (now blackberry), a leading-edge canadian technology company which is repeatedly sued by U.S. companies on various patents which they claim are being infringed upon. RIM was sued by a patent-holding company which does no actual business of its own (other than apparently holding patents and making lawsuits) for 5 claims of infringement. The judge ruled in their favor and declared that RIM was not to make blackberry sales or services in the U.S. until the patents expired, but he stayed the ruling pending appeal (the ruling would only go through if RIM's subsequent appeal was unsuccessful).

The case went through several appeals, with RIM attempting to take it to the supreme court. Here's the short of it: first, RIM offered $450M as a settlement. Then, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviewed the patents and rejected all 5 of them. However, these rejections were "non-final" rejections. The judge in the ongoing case announced that he was considering granting NTP an injunction which would shut down RIM's multi-billion dollar mobile e-mail service. RIM requested that the judge either wait for the USPTO to make it's final judgement on the patents or else grant them an injunction in the case that the patents were "finally" ruled invalid. He simply refused. With the risk of losing a multi-billion dollar service looming over their heads, RIM offered a $600+M settlement, which was accepted by NTP. The patents were later verified to be invalid. Where is the integrity in the approach taken by court in this case?

This company faces constant harassment from U.S. sources, largely due to its competition with U.S. businesses such as Apple. Their phones have the absolute best technology on the market in certain aspects (notably security for virtual transactions) yet they have many other obstacles to overcome.

Your passive acceptance that you cannot hold the government accountable for its actions out of respect for bureaucracy is the void into which all semblance of social justice dissipates.

During the trial, RIM tried to show that a functional wireless email system was already in the public domain at the time the NTP inventions had been made. This would have invalidated the NTP patents. The prior system was called "System for Automated Messages" (SAM). RIM demonstrated SAM in court and it appeared to work. But the NTP attorneys discovered that RIM was not using vintage SAM software, but a more modern version that came after NTP's inventions were made. Therefore the judge instructed the jury to disregard the demonstration as invalid.

The point I'm making is simple -- this whole situation is much bigger than Edward Snowden. Asking the question "is Snowden guilty" allows for him to be found guilty or innocent independent of any subsequent evaluation of the law (or vague and convenient interpretation) which makes him so.

In some ideal form, what you are saying is correct, sure. But in reality the law will be respected only when convenient, in the name of patriotism. Given the systemic international criminality of the U.S. government, perhaps there ought to be some concern about the ability of the system to resist corruption.

Who are US officials to speak of their processes as some kind of one true justice? Guantanimo Bay. Rejection of the right to Asylum. Industrial espionage. Secret courts. Maybe in 50 years someone will take these claims of righteousness seriously.

On August 12 2013 19:57 Baarn wrote:
I don't think what he did was correct but I wouldn't call it espionage. If the NSA views the citizens of the US as having no expectation for privacy then why should they have it? If anyone should be charged with espionage it should be people in the US government for signing any of this into law. I've read the many excuses and how helpless some lawmakers feel because there is a huge majority of congressmen that believe passing this through was the right thing to do. I think they are equally as guilty. I guess all we can hope for is that they address the "privacy concerns" that they suddenly care about but not gutting the entire thing. I think the whole spying thing is a load of crap and they are just abusing the fact that the 4th amendment didn't specifically state telephones or internet privacy. I guess they couldn't cause none of that was invented back then. What a crock of shit.

1. http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/NSAprograms4thamendment.pdf

On August 12 2013 23:44 WhiteDog wrote:

Lol... The french constitutional court is full of ex-presidents or deputy who are supposed to protect the constitution. Not really random employees.

On August 12 2013 23:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:


I'm not saying your tactics are wrong, just that the philosophical underpinnings of the US judicial system is one where evidence is given higher standing than a government employee who wants to pave a road of good intentions.

On August 12 2013 23:54 WhiteDog wrote:

Stop trying man it's boring. I was just asking a question, because I have no clue on how the US judicial system works. There are no reason for you to get your american dick out and try to show me how many stars you have printed on it.

And by the way, where are the "higher standing" when the US decide to spy on its own allies ? Didn't they specifically did that out of "good intentions", with "random employees" controlling the entire process, employees such as Snowden.

On August 13 2013 00:07 Talin wrote:


Nobody's tactics involve making arbitrary decisions with no evidence.

The thing is, the said "government employee" (being independent from the executive branch of the government) would have the authority to obtain evidence from any part of government that is suspected for breaking the law. The US judicial system seems to rely on individuals putting their own job, future and possibly life at risk to provide evidence - and nobody will lift a finger to stop the illegal or unconstitutional activities otherwise.

On August 12 2013 04:59 WhiteDog wrote:
The thing is, the said "government employee" (being independent from the executive branch of the government) would have the authority to obtain evidence from any part of government that is suspected for breaking the law. The US judicial system seems to rely on individuals putting their own job, future and possibly life at risk to provide evidence - and nobody will lift a finger to stop the illegal or unconstitutional activities otherwise.

On August 13 2013 00:35 peacenl wrote:


This.

In the end it boils down to how much faith does one have in the US federal courts. Perhaps it calls for a new court system in where government contractor and government branches employees are able to legally fight (albeit in secrecy or private settings) questionable or unlawful practices from inside these organizations, without having to bring everything to the public.

Is such a system even possible because it contradicts the characteristics of existing courts in the US?

On August 12 2013 19:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:


Amidst all that vehemence you seem to have left out some relevant facts that do not exactly cast your characterization of the judge's actions or several of your assertions in the best light. To wit:

NTP has not been the only company to sue RIM for patent infringement and receive a hefty settlement for it. RIM has been caught with its hands in the cookie jar many times.

RIM was caught trying to deceive the jury and the court in the NTP case. To quote Wikipedia:

A jury convicted RIM of patent infringement in the case.

The appeals process took over a year. During all this time RIM was making large amounts of money - well more than 600 million dollars - using systems that a jury had decided they had no right to use without compensating NTP. To characterize the situation of poor RIM up against the wall with no choice because of some dick judge is to ignore that RIM had 12 months to negotiate a settlement or to create some software workarounds. Lo and behold, as soon as the courts become impatient with their inability to work a settlement, RIM announces that it has developed software workarounds that would allow them to operate regardless of an injunction.

RIM had 12 months to rectify the situation, but the justice system is awful because after 12 months the judge said enough is enough.

It was discovered that RIM lawyers had attempted to improperly influence patent office officials.

These rulings by the patent office you refer to were appealed by NTP to federal court, with some of them being vacated, others reversed, and the case remanded back to. So they are not as authoritative as you are holding them to be, and in any case, courts cannot and should not delay cases for years waiting on the decision of some bureaucratic office or the outcome of a years-long bureaucratic appeals process that may make its way into the court system as well at some point. NTP had the right to make its claims, it won a jury verdict, it has rights too. Not just RIM.

NTP has also won numerous settlements with other companies over these patents, including Microsoft, Google, and a who's-who list of telecommunications and telecommunications technology companies. I find it highly doubtful that NTP would be able to squeeze these settlements out of some of the most powerful corporations on earth, billions of dollars being talked about here, unless it had at least some merits to its claims.

Somehow, during your diatribe, you failed to mention that RIM had been deemed wrong by a jury. The case went from being filed to appeals? There seems to be a step missing there. Jury verdicts are quite relevant and important to a judge making a ruling on an appeal and on the issue of, uh, issuing injunctions.




That does not seem to be the only point you are making, and it is not a simple situation so simple points are of little value alone.



There seems to be a disconnect between the historical record and your contention that the law is only respected "when convenient."

Ah yes, the systemic international criminality of the US government. Now there's a dog whistle for the peanut gallery.



One true justice, lol, where has that phrase been used by US officials to describe their processes?

You are aware, of course, that if terrorists are prisoners of war then they have no right to a trial or to be released at all before the end of the conflict? This seems to be main issue with Guantanamo, that they allegedly have little right or recourse to pursue their release. Yet was there not a Supreme Court ruling in 2006 stating just that? Did not the Supreme Court rule that laws regarding a trial system for terrorists must meet certain standards higher than those created by the executive branch at the time. This did not build on a previous 2004 ruling that terrorists did indeed possess the right of habeas corpus?

Here is a list right here of terrorists released from Guantanamo (included for some reason is a detainee who died while in custody):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_release_and_transfer_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees

It would seem that Guantanamo being the worst thing since Hitler has not prevented the vast majority of detainees held there from being released, to the point where there are 166 detainees there now, where at one point it was over 600.

You are impugning the integrity of numerous federal justices who have hundreds of years of combined distinctive service on the state and the federal bench by saying "secret court" in such a manner in reference to the FISA court. Are all or most of these judges crypto-fascists?

Industrial espionage? Is that some kind of indication that the kitchen sink is going to be thrown at the US next post? You know, France engaged in a lot of industrial espionage against the US in the 1980s and 1990s for all I know still is, China has been engaged in industrial espionage against the whole world from 1949 to today. Who other than those dastardly US officials has ever raised a stink about that? And even they fail to approach the Manichean intensity we see on display here.

And finally, maybe so, but I can guarantee that in 50 years the same impotent ideological fringe of society that is taking your claims seriously now will still be the only ones taking them seriously.

On August 13 2013 13:51 KnowNothing wrote:


I believe I made that clear, minus the assumption that settlement implies guilt.



Just because they used a more recent version of SAM doesn't mean they did so to intentionally deceive the courts. You
make no mention here that the modern version drew in any way upon NTP's invalid patents.


If they didn't make such an announcement they would have taken a considerable PR & stock exchange hit. It's hard to say
how effective their workarounds would have been, but clearly they felt it was worth 600M to maintain the existing system.


Without a source I must assume that this is false. From what I can tell, according to NTP, a Canadian government
official attempted to speak to the PTO on behalf of a Canadian company being tried in a U.S. court. God forbid the voice of a defendant be heard.



So your argument is that because the courts later overturned the findings of the PTO, they were correct in ignoring their findings to begin with. They were not authoritative, well obviously, that was the problem in the case. What's curious is the existence of a government body devoted solely to the evaluation of patents without power to enforce their determinations. It's unfortunate for canadians that while being tried in US courts even the official US institutions (i.e. the theoretically "proper channels") hold no power to ensure that their rights are respected.



Well if you find it highly doubtful, I can't argue with that. Really, you bring this up as support for your argument?



The US is the only country in the world that believes Snowden should be returned to them and have his basic human rights ignored. That is the justice being called for. Even while many Americans don't think that way, it is seen as a serious likelyhood, which brings me to Guantanimo.



Allow me to help you with this, as you seem to have inadvertently brushed over the minor issue of torture, humiliation and utter disregard for human dignity that occurs here. Oh right, that.



Okay, apparently this needs to be said: A government with too much power becomes corrupt. That's why we have elections, that's why the system has safeguards built into it. That's why the concept of government transparency is relevant. Secret courts subvert the system which attempts to ensure that your country is run "by the people, for the people", because the people have no fucking clue what's going on now do they? You can't even defend your right not to be spied upon because the government has the power and calls the shots.



Your point escapes me. As far as my personal views are concerned, I can only go where my feelings and thoughts take me. I believe in justice and fairness, and as I see it trampled upon time and again, not by individuals but by the most powerful nation in the world, I find it hard to maintain a dull and measured demeanor. Would you portray me as a radical for my stern condemnation of 1. subverting the american constitution, 2. a pronounced lack of respect for international allies and laws, 3. war crimes, or some combination of the three?



My penis works just fine, thank you. And by the way, that fringe you refer to is marked by the border of the United states of America; you may want to take a look outside sometime. If you still think offenses to human dignity are meaningless or some kind of an acceptable grey-area, I can only hope that someone arrives at your doorstep to alleviate you of your own.