FWIS3

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 10:55 am**

This is in response to Fisher's line in another thread

Disclaimer: I think Manning is filthy dirt bag who deserves the death penalty. And Snowden is a douche bag who is quilty of high treason and should also get the death penalty.

Which I really couldn't just let by.

Re Manning: I have to disagree on principle, even if it's legally true (not sure if it is). WikiLeaks should not qualify as an enemy. And I really don't think that leaking classified data should automatically be treason. You want to pin a treason charge on someone, you should have to demonstrate trafficking with an actual no-shit enemy of the state; and doing so knowingly and intentionally, and actually giving them something that helps them.

Irresponsible, yes. Wrong, yes. Dangerous and criminal, yes. But I don't think it should be treason. And I do think that distinction is necessary. Treason charges and the death penalty should not be thrown around like water balloons, lest they become a political tool etc. etc.

On the other hand, as far as Snowden: what, seriously? Fuck off.

What should he have done? Kept his mouth shut, while the NSA proceeded to do something patently illegal under cover of classification? Taken it up with internal management people, who would no doubt dismiss everything and make sure his concerns went nowhere? How do you expect an organization to maintain any ethical standards, when there is secrecy, massive conflicts of interest, and no outside oversight at all?

Also, it would be nice if you could mention a case where NSA mass wiretapping definitely helped prevent a terrorist attack. I know the NSA claims that's happened frequently, but the details seem to invariably be classified, and considering their track record on lying, I think it would be utterly daft to take them at face value.

P.S. I'm quite certain that I'll be out-argued here, as always. By the time we're done, you'll probably have me convinced that down is up, left is right, and torturing enemy combatants is morally obligatory. But hey, I had to at least try, you know?

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:12 pm**

Gullible Jones wrote:This is in response to Fisher's line in another thread

P.S. I'm quite certain that I'll be out-argued here, as always. By the time we're done, you'll probably have me convinced that down is up, left is right, and torturing enemy combatants is morally obligatory. But hey, I had to at least try, you know?

We have lots of practice.

As for Manning I am going to let the Uniform Code of Military Justice speak for itself. Article 106A Treason

(a) (1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly, any thing described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty of an offense that directly concerns (A) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (B) war plans, (C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or (D) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct.

Manning worked directly in an area of the military with special knowledge of how this shit works. He knew that providing these documents to WikiLeaks was tantamount to giving them to the world and any foreign government including our enemies. Article 106A specifically states the person only has to have a reason to believe that their actions will injure the U.S. OR give advantage to our enemies. And the act can be directly or indirectly. Manning may have used an indirect method but his actions qualify. And Article 106A clearly states that if found guilty of Treason the person is subject to Death or such other punishment as a courts martial may direct. IOW Manning could have been sentenced to death. And it was within the courts authority to do so. He was found guilty of at least 6 counts of espionage. He was acquitted of the charge of aiding the enemy. Which is why he probably was not sentenced to death.

Snowden faces at a minimum a number of espionage charges which include unauthorized communication of national defense information. But, I will allow the definition of the Constitution to be my main argument.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. 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.

Snowden is also one who had special knowledge and awareness that his actions constituted harm against the U.S. and were an indirect or direct attempt to aid the enemies of the U.S. as such his actions can be considered high treason. High treason is the act of attempting to overthrow the legitimate government in power. His claim of being a whistleblower is a feeble attempt to justify the actions of a traitor. Had he taken his information directly to someone in authority such as the president, the secretary of defense, the head of the NSA, etc he would have been a whistleblower. Otherwise he is a treasonous son of a bitch who deserves the death penalty.

Are you confused yet?

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:51 pm**

Playing Devil's Advocate, or perhaps GJ's Advocate, do you think Snowden taking his case to the president (not sure how one even does that), the SecDef, the head of the NSA or any other high government official would have resulted in any change at all? These are the people that already knew the parameters of how the NSA was conducting surveillance on Americans. As did the various members of Congress who sit on intelligence committees.

So how does someone who sees a government agency operating outside the bounds of constitution - as most Americans see it - do any thing about it? Is that not what the press is for in this country, to keep an eye on the government? But you say, and it's hard to argue the legalities, that ratting out the NSA to the NY Times is high treason subject to the death penalty.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:58 pm**

"She," not "he". I will respect that choice of Manning's, even if she is legally a traitor. Anyway that is clearer re: Manning, so thank you.

I will note though that "to the advantage of a foreign nation" sounds damn vague. Likewise the materials covered. IANAL of course; but, reading the words literally, it sounds as though "photograph of US troops massacring unarmed civilians" would be treason if passed on to journalists, because that would be propaganda fuel for foreign governments (i.e. aiding and abetting).

Even if that wasn't the intent, it seems kind of insane to legally define treason with such huge breadth. (Though admittedly I am probably reading it wrong.)

As for Snowden though: yes, I am confused. You're either being astonishingly naive or deliberately obtuse.

Snowden is also one who had special knowledge and awareness that his actions constituted harm against the U.S. and were an indirect or direct attempt to aid the enemies of the U.S. as such his actions can be considered high treason. High treason is the act of attempting to overthrow the legitimate government in power. His claim of being a whistleblower is a feeble attempt to justify the actions of a traitor. Had he taken his information directly to someone in authority such as the president, the secretary of defense, the head of the NSA, etc he would have been a whistleblower. Otherwise he is a treasonous son of a bitch who deserves the death penalty.

Yes, go right to the people who orchestrated the damn thing, which would accomplish nothing whatsoever. Again: how do you maintain accountability without any public oversight or consequences for those in charge?

Those words there, there: "legitimate government in power." I do not think those mean what you think they mean.

This is a goddamn democratic nation whose goddamn government is supposed to be answerable to its goddamn public, and whose military is supposed to be answerable to its civilian government. And whose institutions are supposed to have a sense of responsibility, and to have that sense of responsibility reinforced with punitive legal consequences when politicians and military leaders decide to shirk it. How is justice ever supposed to be served, within the military or the civilian government, if crimes can be kept secret? How the bloody hell do you deal with corruption and abuse of power internally, when the people at the very top of the command hierarchy are corrupt and abusing power?

Edit: geonuc got there first.

Anyway, if both cases are legally treason... well, goody. Suffice to say that, were I in Snowden's situation, I hope to God that I would have the integrity to be a traitor.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:10 pm**

geonuc wrote:Playing Devil's Advocate, or perhaps GJ's Advocate, do you think Snowden taking his case to the president (not sure how one even does that), the SecDef, the head of the NSA or any other high government official would have resulted in any change at all? These are the people that already knew the parameters of how the NSA was conducting surveillance on Americans. As did the various members of Congress who sit on intelligence committees.

So how does someone who sees a government agency operating outside the bounds of constitution - as most Americans see it - do any thing about it? Is that not what the press is for in this country, to keep an eye on the government? But you say, and it's hard to argue the legalities, that ratting out the NSA to the NY Times is high treason subject to the death penalty.

I don't know if anything would have changed. I don't know if Snowden was right about the NSA. I am not sure I am against everything the NSA was doing even if it violated the spirit of the constitution. The US Supreme Court has ruled on many occasions that the constitution does not guarantee a right to privacy. We merely have an expectation of one.

If Snowden had merely leaked his information to the NY Times or the Washington Post and then stayed to face the music I might have a different opinion of his motives. He didn't. He flew to Hong Kong. Shared everything he had with three different people involved in journalism and documentary making. And then promptly sought and received asylum in Russia. Not exactly a country on our top 10 friends list.

Snowden has stated that as early as 2008 he intended to commit illegal acts with the intent to expose the U.S. "illegal spying" specifically the NSA. He went to work for them under false pretenses. He swore an oath. He was in a position of trust and had access to information that was very sensitive and was able to take that information. This information may have directly or indirectly lead to the death of US operatives, US citizens, and foreign citizens. It has surely compromised many of the programs intended to help keep this country secure.

He currently still has all of that information and is in a country that seems to brewing up to take back a significant part of Eastern Europe through subterfuge, direct conflict, and etc.

So, you tell me. Give those facts. Doesn't it appear that Snowden seems guilty of high treason?

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:18 pm**

If you would like a comparable case to Snowden's look at Daniel Ellsberg

Many parallels. No Whistleblower laws. Charged with the same crimes initially as Snowden. Totally different actions on the part of Ellsberg. And totally different outcome. In some ways he was acquitted on technicalities because he actually did break the law. But, no one disputes that he did what he thought was right or that he faced the consequences for those actions.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:26 pm**

SciFiFisher wrote:If Snowden had merely leaked his information to the NY Times or the Washington Post and then stayed to face the music I might have a different opinion of his motives.

That's an interesting statement. Do you think Snowden's motive was to leak intelligence to our enemies? Granted that what he did had that effect but do you think that was what he was after? Or was he interested in exposing the NSA's activities in an effort to have their practices reined in?

I'm of the latter opinion, and I think he fled rather than face the music because the tune the government would be playing would be fairly harsh. As I recall, he's in Russia because he had no where else to go to avoid extradition.

In answer to your question, no, I don't think he's guilty of high treason. He didn't try to overthrow the government. Rather, he's guilty of treason.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:35 pm**

SciFiFisher wrote:If you would like a comparable case to Snowden's look at Daniel Ellsberg

Many parallels. No Whistleblower laws. Charged with the same crimes initially as Snowden. Totally different actions on the part of Ellsberg. And totally different outcome. In some ways he was acquitted on technicalities because he actually did break the law. But, no one disputes that he did what he thought was right or that he faced the consequences for those actions.

Agreed. Quite comparable.

I don't think Snowden's decision to flee should bear on deciding whether what he did was treason or not. It only bears on how he is perceived in a non-judicial sense.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:44 pm**

SciFiFisher wrote:If Snowden had merely leaked his information to the NY Times or the Washington Post and then stayed to face the music I might have a different opinion of his motives. He didn't. He flew to Hong Kong. Shared everything he had with three different people involved in journalism and documentary making. And then promptly sought and received asylum in Russia. Not exactly a country on our top 10 friends list.

Or how about if he had told his information to the Chairman or the minority leader of the House or Senate committee on Intelligence? He wasn't trying to fix a bad system, he was trying to cause damage to the United States.

I would also point out that they actions of these men (particularly Snowden, IIRC) lead directly to the murder of various individuals who had helped US forces in Afghanistan, when their identities were in the information leaked by him, and thus giving people like Al-Qaeda the information to take revenge out on them.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 10:32 pm**

Why is this in the Mosh Pit?

Posted: **Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:16 am**

@SFC

Because, from past experience, I pretty much expected to be flamed.

Edit: and also I posted the OP before my morning coffee, with all that implies.

Posted: **Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:38 am**

Good to know. I just wanted it to be clear that I didn't move it here. :lol:

Posted: **Fri Jul 08, 2016 2:29 am**

SciFi Chick wrote:Good to know. I just wanted it to be clear that I didn't move it here.

Yes. But, it may be fun to blame you anyway.

Posted: **Fri Jul 08, 2016 2:30 am**

SciFi Chick wrote:Why is this in the Mosh Pit?

Posted: **Fri Jul 08, 2016 2:41 am**

geonuc wrote:
SciFiFisher wrote:If Snowden had merely leaked his information to the NY Times or the Washington Post and then stayed to face the music I might have a different opinion of his motives.

That's an interesting statement. Do you think Snowden's motive was to leak intelligence to our enemies? Granted that what he did had that effect but do you think that was what he was after? Or was he interested in exposing the NSA's activities in an effort to have their practices reined in?

Part of my reason for attributing Snowden's motives to be less than honorable is this

In March 2014, Army General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee, "The vast majority of the documents that Snowden ... exfiltrated from our highest levels of security ... had nothing to do with exposing government oversight of domestic activities. The vast majority of those were related to our military capabilities, operations, tactics, techniques and procedures."[79] When retired NSA director Keith Alexander was asked in a May 2014 interview to quantify the number of documents Snowden stole, Alexander answered, "I don't think anybody really knows what he actually took with him, because the way he did it, we don't have an accurate way of counting. What we do have an accurate way of counting is what he touched, what he may have downloaded, and that was more than a million documents."[80]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden

He (more than likely) took far more than he really needed to if all he intended was to expose the fact that the NSA was illegally spying on U.S. citizens or it's allies. And as Swift has pointed out we know that his actions have led to the death of a number of people. Add to that the fact that Russia's offer of asylum comes with a price tag. I am sure that much of that price tag includes sharing the information concerning the espionage capabilities of the U.S. and the information he stole.

Given his background there is no way he could not know that what he was doing was going to be harmful to the U.S.

Posted: **Fri Jul 08, 2016 11:26 am**

Continuing my Devil's Advocacy, I'd challenge two things.

First, I don't think Snowden planned to go to Russia and probably is unsatisfied with his situation. So saying that Russia is exacting a price for their offer of asylum doesn't really speak to Snowden's motives. I'm sure he'd prefer to be somewhere else as long as he doesn't get extradited.

Second, you say that given his background he must have known what he doing would be harmful to the US. Maybe, but another interpretation is that he intended to do what he said he was doing, exposing the NSA's illegal activities. That motive is a righteous one. It's also quite possible that his method of gathering information swept up way more than he needed for his stated purpose (exposing the NSA) and thus included sensitive military information that, when disclosed, resulted in unintended consequences.

That last part is pure speculation but I haven't seen anything to definitively conclude that he intended to expose anything but the NSA's illegal activities. Mind you, as part of this advocacy, I fully recognize the principles of liability for unintended consequences. I'm just addressing Snowden's motives.

Posted: **Fri Jul 08, 2016 11:47 am**

SciFi Chick wrote:Why is this in the Mosh Pit?

I don't think it belongs in the Mosh Pit.

Posted: **Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:16 pm**

geonuc wrote:
SciFi Chick wrote:Why is this in the Mosh Pit?
I don't think it belongs in the Mosh Pit.

#*ck both of you, you @other#uc^king, %ock&uck!ng wankers.

Now can it stay?

Posted: **Fri Jul 08, 2016 1:32 pm**

Thumper wrote:
geonuc wrote:
SciFi Chick wrote:Why is this in the Mosh Pit?
I don't think it belongs in the Mosh Pit.

#*ck both of you, you @other#uc^king, %ock&uck!ng wankers.

Now can it stay?

Now it might need to go in the Firefight. roll:

Posted: **Fri Jul 08, 2016 3:03 pm**

Thumper wrote:
geonuc wrote:
SciFi Chick wrote:Why is this in the Mosh Pit?
I don't think it belongs in the Mosh Pit.

#*ck both of you, you @other#uc^king, %ock&uck!ng wankers.

Now can it stay?

Sod off you knackered crusty dragon. You wouldn't know a wanker if it slapped you in the face.

Posted: **Fri Jul 08, 2016 3:09 pm**

geonuc wrote:Continuing my Devil's Advocacy, I'd challenge two things.

First, I don't think Snowden planned to go to Russia and probably is unsatisfied with his situation. So saying that Russia is exacting a price for their offer of asylum doesn't really speak to Snowden's motives. I'm sure he'd prefer to be somewhere else as long as he doesn't get extradited.

Second, you say that given his background he must have known what he doing would be harmful to the US. Maybe, but another interpretation is that he intended to do what he said he was doing, exposing the NSA's illegal activities. That motive is a righteous one. It's also quite possible that his method of gathering information swept up way more than he needed for his stated purpose (exposing the NSA) and thus included sensitive military information that, when disclosed, resulted in unintended consequences.

That last part is pure speculation but I haven't seen anything to definitively conclude that he intended to expose anything but the NSA's illegal activities. Mind you, as part of this advocacy, I fully recognize the principles of liability for unintended consequences. I'm just addressing Snowden's motives.

Part of the problem with attributing motives to people. We both could be right. Or both be wrong. Given the speed at which things occurred IMHO I suspect Snowden had conversations with Russia prior to going to Hong Kong. Do I know this for a fact? Nope. Can't prove a damn thing.

Shear speculation but I think it is more likely than not that it is true. Things went very smoothly for Mr. Snowden. The whole thing went down like a very well planned operation.

I will admit that your point about high treason may be accurate. And you have raised some valid points and questions. You make a fine GJ's Advocate (or Devil's). One would almost think you were a lawyer instead of an engineer.

Posted: **Fri Jul 08, 2016 3:19 pm**

SciFiFisher wrote:.... One would almost think you were a lawyer instead of an engineer.

He's both.

Posted: **Fri Jul 08, 2016 3:54 pm**

Sigma_Orionis wrote:
SciFiFisher wrote:.... One would almost think you were a lawyer instead of an engineer.

He's both.

Well, this is the Mosh Pit. So I guess you're entitled to call me all sorts of vile things.

Posted: **Sat Jul 09, 2016 6:54 pm**

geonuc wrote:Well, this is the Mosh Pit. So I guess you're entitled to call me all sorts of vile things.

Law Student

Posted: **Sun Jul 10, 2016 3:44 am**

Sigma_Orionis wrote:
geonuc wrote:Well, this is the Mosh Pit. So I guess you're entitled to call me all sorts of vile things.

Cap, cap liner, label...

All sorts of vial things.

FWIS3

Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

Re: Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability