Edward Snowden Charged With Espionage By US Government
from the and-off-we-go dept
This isn't a huge surprise, but the Washington Post is reporting that US federal prosecutors have filed a sealed criminal complaint against Edward Snowden charging him with espionage under the Espionage Act, along with theft and conversion of government property -- and have asked Hong Kong authorities to detain him. Just this morning, we were discussing the Obama administration's war on whistleblowers, prosecuting six different whistleblowers under the Espionage Act, twice the number of all other presidential administrations combined. Now we're up to number seven apparently. Update: The complaint has been unsealed (also embedded below).Did Snowden break the law? Possibly -- but charging him with espionage is ridiculous, just as it has been ridiculous in many of these cases. Snowden wasn't doing this to "aid the enemy" but to alert the American public to the things that the administration itself had been publicly misleading to downright untruthful about. His actions have kicked off an important discussion and debate over surveillance society and how far it has gone today. That's not espionage. If he was doing espionage, he would have sold those secrets off to a foreign power and lived a nice life somewhere else. To charge him with espionage is insane.
In terms of process, the Washington Post explains:
By filing a criminal complaint, prosecutors have a legal basis to make the request of the authorities in Hong Kong. Prosecutors now have 60 days to file an indictment, probably also under seal, and can then move to have Snowden extradited from Hong Kong for trial in the United States.It also notes that while the US and Hong Kong have an extradition treaty, there is an exception for "political offenses."
Snowden, however, can fight the U.S. effort to have him extradited in the courts in Hong Kong. Any court battle is likely to reach Hong Kong's highest court and could last many months, lawyers in the United States and Hong Kong said.
While this certainly was not unexpected, it's still a disappointing move from the administration. The crackdown on whistleblowers does not make the US look strong. It makes our government look weak, petty and vindictive in the face of actual transparency. It's shameful.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: barack obama, doj, ed snowden, edward snowden, espionage, extradition, hong kong, nsa, nsa surveillance, whistleblowers
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This whole thing is going to be a kangaroo court if they ever get their hands on him.
Obama has abused the Espionage Act to the point it is worthless for the original intent it was to be used for. Snowden did not aid the enemy. Snowden told the public what it's government refuses to acknowledge; that it is breaking the spirit of our laws. The embarrassment factor is not aiding the enemy. The government would not have to worry about embarrassment were it not continually doing things against it's citizens best interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
opposing sides of the same coin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extradition versus deportation
But, as other articles have pointed out in recent weeks, extradition is not the only option the US has here.
An article in USA Today quoted a former FBI official saying that the US has the option of revoking Snowden's passport, and requesting that Hong Kong deport him back to the US.
�U.S. explores criminal charges against Snowden�, by Kevin Johnson and Zach Coleman, USA Today, June 10, 2013
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extradition versus deportation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extradition versus deportation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extradition versus deportation
The problem here is that passports are not what people think they are, they are only a part of the process of entering, staying and traversing multiple territories. Other things like Visa's especially also come into play.
The USA in this instance is basically going to find themselves pissing up a rope, and show themselves if they revoke his passport that they are vindictive and also that legally he cannot then enter the USA due to his USA passport being revoked.. oops.. so deportation from HK can not even occur.
Actually I suspect with the amount of international outrage from all levels that the leaking of these documents has driven towards the US Govt that asking for extradition from the HK Govt might be the least of the USG's problems, especially since the treaty can be overridden not just by the 'political asylum' defense but also directly by the intervention of the Chinese Government itself... which is probably more likely. Personally I'd recommend the guy start talking to the Chinese govt and offer his services there is no way he will ever be able to enter the USA or any so called 'friendly to the USA' nations anymore ever and it seems based on current norms that China might be a place with strangely more freedom and better opportunities for him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extradition versus deportation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not likely:
1. How is he going to get there?
2. The country is to small to resist US demands to turn him over. If they do not comply a company of marines is sufficient for persuasion.
HK can resist because it is now part of China with the additional feature that HK is not under Chinese law unless China wants HK to be which in this case China may be very content to have plausible denial-ability. If he becomes too hot to handle in HK China can always send him to Mongolia where again China would have denial-ability.
Under any circumstances though he is not returning to the US as to do so equals sound proof box in a psychological ward for the rest of his life. Better for him to defect and spill everything than come back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's winter over here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Multiple amendments trampled
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
unless
The only conclusion that can be reached here is that the Obama regime views the American people as the enemy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does it just not occur to you that since you're making a legal claim such as your claim here that this is not espionage that you should back it up with an actual discussion of the law?
Seriously. That's fine if you don't think it's espionage. But it's bullshit to just arrive at that conclusion based on faith rather than looking at the actual law and doing the analysis.
Can you actually back up your assertion, or is this just more faith-based FUD?
I'd love to see your legal basis for saying this is not espionage. And if you have no such basis, I'd to see you admit that you don't.
But we know that you can't be that honest.
Besides, you�re too busy blocking TOR exit nodes, desperately trying to keep anonymous dissidents from criticizing you, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/us-usa-security-snowden-iceland-idUSBRE95K0WT20130621
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does it just not occur to you that since you're making a legal claim such as your claim here that this is not espionage that you should back it up with an actual discussion of the law?
Seriously. That's fine if you don't think it's espionage. But it's bullshit to just arrive at that conclusion based on faith rather than looking at the actual law and doing the analysis.
Can you actually back up your assertion, or is this just more faith-based FUD?
I'd love to see your legal basis for saying this is not espionage. And if you have no such basis, I'd to see you admit that you don't.
But we know that you can't be that honest.
Besides, you�re too busy blocking TOR exit nodes, desperately trying to keep anonymous dissidents from criticizing you, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Niel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Good one Nigel
Also, I wanted to say, on this thread:
Charges of Spying!?!
Who's spying on Whom???
The charge of spying just oozes with irony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Niel
At least he can spell his own name. And by the way, calling someone a pussy from another continent is hardly an act of courage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
See the problem here is that we seem to be living in a culture where it's okay to alter the meaning of words to suit nefarious purposes, like trying to make trumped up charges stick. Copying DVD's or what have you is "stealing," pointing out that our government is violating the Constitution is "espionage." Pretty soon, disagreeing with moronic posts like yours is "hate speech"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Does it just not occur to you that since you're making a legal claim such as your claim here that this is not espionage that you should back it up with an actual discussion of the law?
Seriously. That's fine if you don't think it's espionage. But it's bullshit to just arrive at that conclusion based on faith rather than looking at the actual law and doing the analysis.
Can you actually back up your assertion, or is this just more faith-based FUD?
I'd love to see your legal basis for saying this is not espionage. And if you have no such basis, I'd to see you admit that you don't.
But we know that you can't be that honest.
Besides, you�re too busy blocking TOR exit nodes, desperately trying to keep anonymous dissidents from criticizing you, right?
Sorry. Mike's not "doing journalism" just now. As you noted, it is more faith-based FUD. Just like how Aaron Swartz was innocent, Fat Bastard committed no crimes and Bradley Manning did no wrong. This guy is in deep shit. If he isn't already at the Chinese embassy learning Mandarin right now, he's fucked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't see Mike making a legal claim, I see a statement of common frickin' sense, something you seem to be drastically lacking in.
And ironically you cannot offer any argument, legal or otherwise, against what Mike's said. Nothing of any substance, just personal attacks as usual. Pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you can't see Masnick claiming that the charge of espionage is baseless in the above passage, I suggest you get it translated into your native language for further study.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Show us where Mike claims he has legal standing to make a legal statement on the issue and your whinings might actually be intelligible.
Not that it matters, because whatever he says - even if he says the sky is blue - you'll contradict him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Patriot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its time to end this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its time to end this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Its time to end this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Its time to end this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Its time to end this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its time to end this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its time to end this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess this administration's motto should be the reverse of the cliche:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Updated with complaint
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The definitions of espionage and treason
"Espionage is a part of intelligence activity, which is also concerned with analysis of diplomatic reports, newspapers, periodicals, technical publications, commercial statistics, and radio and television broadcasts. In recent years, espionage activity has been greatly aided by technological advances, especially in the areas of radio signal interception and high-altitude photography."
Reference: http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/espionage/
The United States does more espionage in its' diplomatic missions than Edward Snowden ever did.
They're charging the wrong guy with the wrong crime. I'm sure there are a few others we could point at with the far more serious crime of treason, as this definition goes:
"A person commits the crime of treason if he levies war against his state or country or sides to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Treason is a crime under federal and some state laws. Treason is made a high crime, punishable by death, under federal law by Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Under this article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. Treason requires overt acts such as giving sensitive government security secrets to other countries, even if such countries are not enemies. Treason can include spying on behalf of a foreign power or divulging military secrets.
The majority of states outlaw treason in their constitutions or statutes similar to those in the U.S. Constitution. There have been only two successful prosecutions for treason on the state level, that of Thomas Dorr in Rhode Island and that of John Brown in Virginia."
Snowden is a whistleblower, not a traitor, but the government can't understand legal stuff. God only knows if they've ever read the Constitution, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The definitions of espionage and treason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The definitions of espionage and treason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The definitions of espionage and treason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The definitions of espionage and treason
Considering the United States exists because of their people and not in spite of them we could conclude that Obama and the current administrator fit under the definition of treason as they are waging war against the American people. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop the Spying!
It's not much, but it's a start.
Do what you believe is right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
benefits
The benefits to the American people are questionable. In simple terms, much of it doesn't matter, much of it is spectacular but legal, and most of the rest of it leads to congress critters claiming they didn't know what they approved and heard about already.
For the enemy, it's confirmation of the methods and systems being used by NSA, a good solid list of things that the NSA claims to have heard, as well as a nice warning to the enemy not to use certain things in the clear that they perhaps though was safe before.
Benefit to the enemies of the US outweighs the benefits to the US public by far. Hence, the charge of espionage.
As for extradition, it is very likely that the US will revoke Snowdon's passport (they can do that) and Hong Kong of whereever he is holed up will pretty much have to arrest and detain him for not having a valid travel document, and likely expel him from the country on a flight to the US without an extradition hearing.
His only hope is to join the self-exiled Assange in an embassy somewhere. Then you know he's guilty as they come, because like Assange, he just doesn't want to have to face justice.
(day 5 of my comments being held for moderation... the Techdirt Censorship campaign continues... and NO, my IP isn't a TOR exit).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: benefits
Oh look, I responded to a 'held for moderation' comment. Effective censorship? Not really.
Espionage is not 'benefit to enemies of the US' more than benefit to the people, or else we could just charge Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld with aiding and abetting Al Qaeda by acting as the world's biggest recruitment agency for them. Espionage is a specific crime - calling this espionage is as accurate as calling infringement 'theft'.
Also, hiding from a corrupt government is now 'admitting guilt'? What exactly is Assange 'guilty' of? So you believe that the US should never offer (political) asylum to anyone as they are 'guilty' back home, especially because they fled to you for safety? Riiight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lies
and this guy tells the truth and he is a terrorist, spy and baby raping commie.
are we charging head of the NSA for telling lie's to congress.
No
Sieg Hiel OBMAMA
better pledge to the new fascists now before some one in NSA says im a threat to united police state
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CFAA violation
And if he stays in Hong Kong or goes to Iceland, I think that is the one charge they will use to extradite him, even if have to give up the espionage charge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CFAA violation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CFAA violation
You watch, prosecutors will end up, in the end, making a deal not to persue espionage charges, in order to get him back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Constitution, Bill of Rights, Laws all have been violated by deed, word and action...
But the man who brought proof is the bad guy, not the people who are violating everything they claim to be protecting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snowden wasn't doing this to "aid the enemy" but to alert the American public t...
That is their enemy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Snowden wasn't doing this to "aid the enemy" but to alert the American public t...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Snowden wasn't doing this to "aid the enemy" but to alert the American public t...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Snowden wasn't doing this to "aid the enemy" but to alert the American public t...
Isn't the Guardian available online in the US?
And tell me... how much have the US media been lapdogs of whichever party is in power? It wasn't US media investigating the falseness of claims of WMD. They all rolled over and said "kick us, Bush, and send our sons and daughters off to die for Haliburton".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that sounds like what he did.
It's nice Masnick think he knows the law, but really HE DOES NOT..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The government *sees* the populace as the enemy....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where is the Fourth Estate?
It appears to me that our Fourth Estate has totally abdicated their constitutionally protected RESPONSIBILITY. We can argue (possibly forever) as to why they have abdicated this responsibility. Is it money, political pressure, threat of repercussion from agents of the Government, something else, all of the above?
I might point out that not all the press has so abdicated, merely the mainstream press. For me, this issue (along with Bradley Manning and Wikileaks, and the many many other instances of government doing the doublespeak twisting and turning of law to suit their needs) should be the MAIN topic of conversation in the press. ALL of the press. This coverage should not stop until the issues are resolved to the satisfaction of the PEOPLE of the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NSA has Quantum Computers
http://www.naturalnews.com/040859_Skynet_quantum_computing_D-Wave_Systems.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NSA has Quantum Computers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NSA has Quantum Computers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stealing Government property
Unauthorised communication of National defence information
Wilful communication of classified info to an unauthorised person.
It is going to be hard, (no impossible) to find him innocent on any of those charges.
Clearly he DID those things, we all know it, so what is his defence going to be.. ?
Saying you did it for the public good is only mitigation, but not a defence. Here he has no defence, unless he wants to claim insanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they are not charging him (yet) for that they are charging him for theft of Govm't property,
Unauthorised communication
and giving classified information who does not have the authority to have it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government does not have to prove "Aid the enemy"
They DO NOT have to prove "aiding the enemy" so once again Masnick is wrong.. (How can a GOD be wrong ?? )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vote with your feet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vote with your feet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NSA Eavesdropping
It is obvioulsy assumed that "the enemy" these whistleblowers are presumed to be aiding, is not "the American Public", of course.
However, the charges being laid against all of those who "...alert the American public..." say otherwise.
If the American Public is indeed the enemy of the corporate state currently ruling America, then these charges are indeed appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's screwed,, but it will take much longer for that to happen now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]