Elected Officials Grudgingly Admit Snowden Forced This Debate On Surveillance... As White House Insists He Belongs In Jail
from the cognitive-dissonance dept
No matter what you might think of the surveillance debate happening in DC this week, there's no honest way to deny that the debate would be very different (and likely wouldn't be happening at all) if Ed Snowden had leaked a bunch of documents to reporters almost exactly two years ago. Even those in the Senate who are the NSA's strongest supporters will now grudgingly admit that:“Because of Edward Snowden, there’s a perception -- which is not true -- but there’s a perception that we’re invading people’s privacy,” Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), explained last month. “This would presumably take care of that,” he added, referring to the USA Freedom Act, which he voted against in 2014 but now supports as a better alternative to a complete lapse of the Patriot Act.Of course, both Nelson and Corker are wrong themselves in arguing that there's a "myth" or that perceptions are off. Yes, there are some who have an exaggerated picture of what's happening, but plenty who are fully aware of the details have found the program to be illegal, unconstitutional or both.
[....]
“It’s why we’re here,” Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the chair of the Senate foreign relations committee and a fierce NSA defender, said of the Snowden disclosures. “People began creating a myth around it. That did occur. The public discourse around it created a myth about what this program is and what it isn’t.”
And that, at the very least, has to raise a question: how could it be illegal to blow the whistle on a program that has been found to be illegal or unconstitutional?
But, according to the White House, it still thinks Snowden belongs in jail for basically the rest of his life:
“The fact is that Mr. Snowden committed very serious crimes,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday. “The U.S. government and the Department of Justice believe that he should face them.”"Very serious crimes"? That would be exposing a program that two separate courts, two separate White House review boards and countless others have noted to be illegal and/or unconstitutional? How do you figure? And, the whole "due process" claim is a load of crap from Earnest. As he well knows, under the Espionage Act (which is what Snowden has been charged under), he would not be allowed to explain the whistleblowing reasons for leaking the information. That's not due process and it's not allowing him to make his case.
[...]
“We believe Mr. Snowden should return to the United States, where he will face due process and have the opportunity … to make that case in a court of law,” Earnest said.
The more the White House sticks with this wholly unbelievable line about "very serious crimes" at the very same time that Congress is debating reforms to surveillance programs only because of Snowden's actions, the more and more ridiculous the administration looks. I get that there must be some sort of ridiculous "political calculation" being made here about "looking strong" and "not encouraging" more leaks or something -- but all it really does is make the administration look foolish and unwilling to be honest.
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: debate, ed snowden, espionage act, patriot act, section 215, surveillance, white house
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Such an attitude only helps bad guys (the government) get away with continuing to break the law and violate our rights without anyone knowing about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Translation: He made us look like the assholes we truly are, and we're really pissed about it.
[ 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:
So I guess you're not voting then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Confidence
~ Mass surveillance and data gathering program
~ Police state and tough-on-crime (presumption of guilt) stance of DoJ
~ Extrajudicial detainment, rendition and torture program
GOP is Pro-...
~ Mass surveillance and data gathering program
~ Police state and tough-on-crime (presumption of guilt) stance of DoJ
~ Extrajudicial detainment, rendition and torture program
Why should I even acknowledge an electoral system that fails to acknowledge my positions or best interests?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Confidence
~
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Administration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like Manning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Jeffrey Sterling? David Drake? "No, no, no, silly. Like Panetta and Petraeus. See, the system works as expected." The system stinks all the way to the moon. I think Snowden is either going to grow old outside the USA or be extraordinarily renditioned back to face a Virginian kangaroo court populated by spooks and other useful idiots. Even in the senate's Patriot Act sunset debate, the surveillance state's champions mumble sotto voce about all the other sooper-seekrit programs that Snowden stole information on and spilled the beans to unauthorized foreign entities.
Gawd forbid they should turn around and take a suspicious look at some of the crap the CIA pulls daily (and has done since its inception).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh.
Would that be before or after Clapper faces lying under oath to Congress about commandeering the dismantling of the U.S. Constitution by criminally reinterpreting his mandate?
As long as none of the criminals uncovered by Snowden's actions faces the music and instead stays in office without retribution, it is entirely silly to go gungho on the person uncovering the crimes.
Oh by the way: who is going to get prosecuted for the CIA torturing people to death for fun (as it has been clearly established that at the point of the killing no information was to be gained any more)? Obama has stated emphatically that those "heroes" and "patriots" would not be facing the music. Including the armchair psychologists directing the torture "experiments" and receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars for their "expertise".
I'm all for a punishment proportionate to the crime. If we take the punishment of those criminals as guidance, the punishment of Snowden would probably be a daily banquet in the Washington D.C. market place for the rest of his life.
Which is more or less what Sokrates pleaded as punishment for his "crimes" when dragged before a court about equally likely to deliver justice as a U.S. court.
Hopefully Snowden will spare the American people at least the shame of a mock trial and will refrain from returning while the current criminals are in office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
color me blue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Morals?
The thing is, if the law is supposed to uphold our morals then the law is failing us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Morals?
"Mans" laws are either immoral or unnecessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Human laws in conflict with natural law are immoral.
All of society, which is based on establishing rights for the individual even when the individual cannot enforce those rights, is based on subverting the above natural law.
In fact, the current situation of corporate oligarchy, is a return to the might = right paradigm, where symbolic might, in the form of money (which can be exchanged for loyalty of armed garrisons) has captured those who are supposed to be regulated by the people.
Our constitutional framers have painstakingly defined our inalienable rights, standing atop some very significant frameworks such as the Magna Carta and the Social Contract. None of these are in any way natural, but were carefully artificed on the foundation of centuries of suffering for not having them.
We defend -- take up arms to resume the fight for -- liberty and equality not because they sound like charming concepts, but because every society that does not assert them really sucks for the people near the bottom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Morals?
The law is not supposed to uphold our morals (or shouldn't be, anyway). Legislating morality is not only a terrible idea that leads directly to tyranny, it's ineffective. Morality is enforced the way it's always been enforced: through social pressure.
That's not to say there's no connection, but the proper connection is in the other direction: what laws are acceptable is informed by morality, but laws never dictate or uphold morality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proscription of murder is a moral.
You might be thinking of morality as revealed by sacred scripture, but that is hardly the only source of human mores.
Treat others as you would be treated and Do no harm are the mores universal to every society, even when laws and social customs fail to express or enforce them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proscription of murder is a moral.
Agreed.
A lot of hay is made about how "might is right" right is some inbred fact of human nature, when reciprocity and a urge to preserve the lives of not just the self, but others, comes from a place of empathy that is just as innate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Proscription of murder is a moral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Might is right
The notion of might is right as a divine order emerged from the feudal age in which lords were all soldiers, and we see customs such as trial-by-combat on the pretense that God favors the righteous (God favored a lot of big Gregor Clegaine types until the age of firearms).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proscription of murder is a moral.
"You might be thinking of morality as revealed by sacred scripture"
I'm not at all. I'm talking about the mores of a given society -- the moral code that a group of people have agreed upon (consciously or otherwise). I'm not talking about the source of the moral code or whether or not I agree with it.
Personally, my moral code is based on logic and reasoning and it consists of the golden rule. But my moral code is not identical to that of the society I live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transgressions
However, it reminds me of the murder of Spotted Tail by Crow Dog (leading to the Ex parte Crow Dog decision and the subsequent Major Crimes Act.) in which restitutions were determined in the form of a fine paid (in kind) to the family of Spotted Tail.
And I realize that while I expect protections against transgression to be enforced by our justice system, I cannot say with certainty that it is the best way to provide those protections, or restitution when those protections fail.
A law against murder seems to be a no-brainer, but an appropriate response by the state is less clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Transgressions
Of course, all that is easy to say in the stark sterility of simplicity. That the devil is in the details is apparent at a first quick glance: what is "harm"? What is "consent"?
And we have haven't even got to your (quite correct) point: what is the appropriate response to breaking the various laws?
I guess the point I'm rambling towards is that this whole business of laws is really nothing more than an aspect of the business of human interaction -- and that's something that gets very messy very quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Morals?
If he returned to the States to face trial, it would be a Star Chamber affair in which he would not even be allowed to make a defence.
Stay free and proud, Mr. Snowden – the world needs moral people like you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No one belongs in US jails.
At this point, the Department of Justice has the right to detain or execute prisoners only because it has the arms to enforce its will against the people.
Not because it has any authoritative high ground. Not because we expect fair and wise arbitration from any court of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whitehouse insists he belongs in jail...
He deserves a freaking medal, and we can make it from the spent bullets used by the firing squads that execute the treasonous traitors in the Executive branch from top to bottom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whitehouse insists he belongs in jail...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2 years later
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thought by the same very felons who lied to congress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They do plenty of this
The current administration doesn't need any help here, they do this all day long. I am afraid the next administration will be as bad or worse if it is Hillary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fixed it for you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good to see such prejudicial comments from the White House
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good to see such prejudicial comments from the White House
Added to that, he'd be tried under the espionage act, so we're not talking People's Court here -- this would be a private affair operated behind closed doors by the rules of those in power. No need for a regular jury trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good to see such prejudicial comments from the White House
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this guy still around???
This president has clearly shown his distaste for the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. It's almost time he had a new gig! Someplace else! Far away...
Mr. Obama...You've definite left a 'bad-taste' in a lot of Americans' mouths...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perception? Not True? 2nd District court disagrees...
That statement is about as true as "the world is flat" or "the earth is the center of the universe" or "9/11 changed the Constitution"
Which is to say, that it is 100% fabrication, untruth, lying out his skid-mark stained trousers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perception? Not True? 2nd District court disagrees...
Oh come on. Teflon-coated pants don't retain skid marks, and he could not be wearing anything else because they are constantly on fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"There's a perception..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly who created the myth?
Noooooooo.... the NSA created a myth about what this program is and what it isn’t. And the NSA created a myth about what laws they were following and what laws they weren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I believe that should be "hadn't."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whistleblowing vs self defense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whistleblowing vs self defense
There's also the case of who would be presiding over the case, you can bet the government would argue(and not without merit to be fair) that the classified nature of what was leaked would require a judge familiar with the system, and take a wild guess which way any such judge would be leaning towards?
A 'requirement to consider intent' sounds nice, but you can bet that if the government had any say at all, the 'consideration' would take all of five minutes, and would be found insufficient justification Every. Single. Time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whistleblowing vs self defense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or we need to develop a system that preserves liberty and social equality despite the human propensity for nationalism and tribalism.
We build a society with the people we have, not the people we wish we had.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whistleblowing vs self defense
So does the government. But I think you rather wanted to write "rein in".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Equal persecution
Oh, there aren't any of them facing persecution? I'd not count on "fair" or "just" being what the DOJ actually does, in that case...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snowden's Myth and Criminal Behavior
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
he leaked a lot more than domestic spying
However, he also leaked a bunch about foreign spying, which is not illegal or unconstitutional (and is in fact what the NSA is supposed to be doing). Even Greenwald and Binney says that this was not whistleblowing. Snowden admits that he took to position that got him access to the NSA specifically to get information on the NSA's foreign spying.
So basically what we have is a guy who intended to get in and commit espionage, and while there found illegal domestic spying and turned whistleblower over that--but continued on with the espionage part.
Here's a comment on reddit that covered this in detail with documentation: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/38cej4/elected_officials_grudgingly_admit_snowden_forced /cru8s3x
[ link to this | view in chronology ]