On the Espionage Act charges against Edward Snowden

[BoberFett]

I have no idea what you're trying to say right now.

I'm not surprised, you routinely exhibit a complete lack of basic comprehension skills.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not surprised, you routinely exhibit a complete lack of basic comprehension skills.

Oh Boberfett, never change. I really do enjoy your periodic episodes of impotent rage.

I'm worried that you don't enjoy them though. Your happiness is important to me; is there anything I can do to help?

 

[BoberFett]

Oh Boberfett, never change. I really do enjoy your periodic episodes of impotent rage.

I'm worried that you don't enjoy them though. Your happiness is important to me; is there anything I can do to help?

And you're an expert on impotence, aren't you?

Go play in traffic, wannabe.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I have no idea what you're trying to say right now.

It means that prosecution is not mandatory. Administrations have elected to not enforce laws while vigorously doing so in other cases depending on Executive agenda.

 

[Jaskalas]

The greatest cries of the past decade were to stop the Bush agenda... we've had two Presidential elections to stop it... three if you count 2004. How'd that turn out for us?

If the outrage against Bush couldn't get the system to fix itself, nothing can.

 

[fskimospy]

It means that prosecution is not mandatory. Administrations have elected to not enforce laws while vigorously doing so in other cases depending on Executive agenda.

Okay, so it was just a non-sequitur then. Of course administrations have prosecutorial discretion; not prosecuting Snowden would still encourage people to follow his example.

 

[Fern]

Was the US government actually "breaking the law" though, and if so what law(s)? Honest question btw. I'm not American.

To answer your question specifically:

The 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

The 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.

The Constitution is considered the highest law of the USA. No law can be passed that violates any of its clauses.

Note particularly that "probable cause" is required. Probable Cause means that records etc can not seized unless there is a reasonable belief you have committed a crime. In this case they're just seizing everything from everyone without any probable cause at all.

The Constitution also requires that records that are to be seized must be specified. I.e., the govt can't just seize everything even if they do have probable cause. Just seizing everything, as they are doing, doesn't meet that requirement either.

Fern

 

[BoberFett]

Okay, so it was just a non-sequitur then. Of course administrations have prosecutorial discretion; not prosecuting Snowden would still encourage people to follow his example.

Ah, so that's why Obama has been prosecuting all of those executives for their shenanigans that caused a financial meltdown...

 

[Oldgamer]

Ah, so that's why Obama has been prosecuting all of those executives for their shenanigans that caused a financial meltdown...

Exacty....point taken

 

[Fern]

Okay, so it was just a non-sequitur then. Of course administrations have prosecutorial discretion; not prosecuting Snowden would still encourage people to follow his example.

And not prosecuting the people who leaked the detail about SEAL Team 6 and the mission to kill UBL doesn't?

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

And not prosecuting the people who leaked the detail about SEAL Team 6 and the mission to kill UBL doesn't?

Fern

What about it? You're the third person to bring up an irrelevant point.

 

[BoberFett]

Meh. I'm not surprised by eskimospy's attitude. He's playing the part he always does. He's partisan to the end, but attempts to mask it with smugness and imaginary legal expertise.

 

[BoberFett]

What about it? You're the third person to bring up an irrelevant point.

Only irrelevant to you, because it invalidates your clearly incorrect opinion.

 

[Fern]

What about it? You're the third person to bring up an irrelevant point.

If not prosecuting Snowden encourages others to leak, as you claim, how does not prosecuting the leak about the UBL raid likewise not encourage others to leak?

Fern

 

[FelixDeCat]

Edward Snowden is an American hero and will be recognized as such as soon as Barrak Hussien Obama is deposed.

 

[BoomerD]

Yep. In fact Obama, Feinstein and others have effectively prevented accountability by making it impossible to determine if illegal activities are occuring. It's a free pass for abuse.

If it was that easy, how did Bush, Cheney, and TurdBlossom miss this opportunity?

 

[BoberFett]

If it was that easy, how did Bush, Cheney, and TurdBlossom miss this opportunity?

What makes you think they did?

 

[BoomerD]

What makes you think they did?

Obviously, because there has been no uproar from the Conservatives over such abuse.

 

[BoberFett]

Obviously, because there has been no uproar from the Conservatives over such abuse.

We'll see "conservatives" criticize Bush about the same we see Harvey post an 8 page diatribe about Obama the Murdering Traitor.

 

[fskimospy]

If not prosecuting Snowden encourages others to leak, as you claim, how does not prosecuting the leak about the UBL raid likewise not encourage others to leak?

Fern

It appears that the leak on the Osama raid came from the White House. First, the president is the one that determines if information is to be released or not. I doubt someone looks at the White House leaking info and says to themselves "well I guess the same goes for me too!"

So the answer to that would be a pretty obvious "no".

Maybe you think the White House shouldn't have leaked that information and that's fine, but that's an entirely different discussion. This is about being sure people don't release information without authorization.

 

[unokitty]

Edward Snowden is an American hero and will be recognized as such as soon as Barrak Hussien Obama is deposed.

Steve Wozniak: Snowden ‘Is a Hero'

Uno

 

[Remobz]

You must not value Liberty or Privacy then. Snowden stood to inform us so that we may protect those cherished values against those who trespass. He informed us that Bush's war of terror against the American people continues to this day, and Obama has affirmed that he stands strongly behind such policies.

Are you not tired of being molested at the airport, of having your medical records exposed, of innocent war veterans being gunned down in their own homes by militarized police, of having any shred of Liberty and Privacy ripped away?

It takes an informed public to say no. Snowden informed us when no one else would. That makes him a hero. Stand with your country's values, its civil liberties. Stand with the American people against our corrupt and fascist government.

Do not stand as a traitor against everything we hold dear, as those in power currently do.

I have nothing to hide. And you are fooling yourself if you think anyone is completely private in today's society.

A hero? Toooo funny....

We can discuss true heroes in this world and you will see how Snowden is a joke compared to them.

Yes, no Government is perfect and the word fascist seems like a catchy phrase these days.

Lets make this simple.....I FREELY choose to decide that I want his life to be miserable until the day he is dead (however long that is?).

That is how I feel. Plain and simple.


Have a nice day all.....

 

[Fern]

If it was that easy, how did Bush, Cheney, and TurdBlossom miss this opportunity?

Obviously, because there has been no uproar from the Conservatives over such abuse.

I'm not sure I quite understand what you're saying. But if you're wondering if Bush did or did not utilize these same spying programs, we don't know. To my knowledge no one has said when the programs PRISM and NUCLEON began.

I would think this is the same reason no one is screaming about Bush. No one has said if these programs were in use back then.

Fern

 

[zinfamous]

Good piece. Obama and his administration deserve to be hammered for this. These leaks wouldn't be necessary had Obama kept his commitments to being open and transparent with Americans. He has failed, and failed badly in that respect (just like almost everyone else in Washington D.C.). Obama, Congress, and civil servants everywhere work for us, and are accountable to us. While I understand just how inconvenient that can be, what with pesky citizens looking over your shoulder and demanding to know what you're up to, too damn bad. If you can't accept that "burden", stay the hell out of government.

agreed with all of this.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm not sure I quite understand what you're saying. But if you're wondering if Bush did or did not utilize these same spying programs, we don't know. To my knowledge no one has said when the programs PRISM and NUCLEON began.

I would think this is the same reason no one is screaming about Bush. No one has said if these programs were in use back then.

Fern

We know Bush was spying. That's when all of the secret rooms at telcos started coming to light. The difference was that the American left already hated Bush, so their vitriol continued unabated. Now that it's a D in the big chair, we have opinions from the left ranging from disgust to mild annoyance, to schadenfreude, to full on support for these spy programs.