Manning, Snowden, and lack of govt. accountability

[Cyborg Girl]

@geonuc

That's "okay" as in "okay with the federal government", i.e. "nobody will ever be punished for it."

I don't know enough about law to dispute "criminal". I'll definitely settle for "evil" though.

[geonuc]

I'm not quite as cynical as you, GJ. I don't think that behavior would be okay with all that many in the federal government. Most feds - especially in this administration - are decent people.

[SciFi Chick]

As I've argued before, the damage done by Snowden's leaks due to exposure of NSA are unfortunate. But it's collateral damage, not intentional. How is that different than other types of collateral damage in a righteous cause?

I agree. Ultimately, the responsibility is that of the NSA, because they broke the law. I don't understand why that gets overlooked and brushed off, but what Snowden did is somehow worse.

I'll say again, the NSA's activities and the administration's (primarily the Bush administration) complicity in the extra-legal activities needed to be exposed.

But so many military people are adamant that it wasn't worth it, and I just don't understand that.

And can we please stop conflating Snowden and Manning? Or Assange, for that matter.

Exactly. The military people I know are putting Snowden in the same category as Manning, but Manning was under a completely different set of moral obligations, and she blew it.

[Cyborg Girl]

It takes only a few rotten apples to spoil the barrel though. Groupthink can be powerful.

I'll admit that the Obama administration has been much better than the Bush one. But after the Bush era, I am still very disinclined to trust any branch of government with use of violence, or "necessary" violations of citizens' rights; least of all without oversight. Bush and his people set a most profoundly evil precedent, and the US already has an objectively bad record (even if we're "good guys" compared to Stalin and his ilk).

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/archit ... re-6424826

In the December debate with Cassel, Yoo was asked: "If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?"

Yoo: "No treaty."

Cassel: "Also no law by Congress? That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo [that went to the president]."

Yoo: "I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that."

It will take an awful lot to restore my trust.

(And Bush having effectively paved the way for Donald Trump makes it even worse BTW. Normalizing torture and overt aggression has undone a great deal of painstaking social progress.)

Edit:

@SFC, might it be possible that Snowden was under similar obligations due to working with the NSA? He was a contractor, but the NSA is a military organization...

Anyway, yes, I think we're basically in agreement. But I'm not sure I like this idea of "collateral damage". When someone has a bunch of deaths on their hands, "But I didn't mean for it to happen!" stops being a legitimate excuse pretty fast IMO. Especially when you go and do it again (which applies to Snowden and his repeated leaks, as well as to the government).

To be clear, I still think that some kind of leak was necessary, but I have grave reservations now about how Snowden actually carried it out.

[geonuc]

@SFC, might it be possible that Snowden was under similar obligations due to working with the NSA? He was a contractor, but the NSA is a military organization...

No. The NSA is a Department of Defense organization. Many people working at NSA are military but many are not. Those that are military are subject to the UCMJ even when working at NSA. The civilians are not subject to the UCMJ.

[SciFiFisher]

There are actually conflicting interpretations of whether the NSA actually broke the law. We do have a judge who ruled on one specific case brought by two people. That judge's opinion was that the NSA may have violated the 4th Amendment clause prohibiting illegal S & S and providing for due process. For many years the NSA and the Justice Department operated on the legal premise that the Patriot Act gave them authority. There also was a process for obtaining a warrant to actually listen to people's telephone calls. The NSA states that when those situations arose they never actually listened because they turned the case over to the FBI who got the warrant and did the legal wire tapping. Or if it actually involved their jurisdiction they followed a protocol the ensure that the were doing it legally. I think the challenge is that many people are willing to believe that the NSA was knowingly breaking the law and continues to do so without conscious. I don't think it's that malevolent or that simple. Yes, the NSA bears responsibility for the decisions they made. That doesn't let Snowden off the hook for the ones he made.

The reason so many military people say that Snowden did more harm than good is because they feel that Snowden callously chose to release documents that compromised people who died. He just didn't give a fuck that he was going to cause collateral damage. He had an agenda. One he openly advertised for years before he did it. Which is sad in a way because if the U.S. Government was spying on all of us as much as everyone would like us to believe then they would have caught him before he had the chance to do any damage. And compromised the U.S. and the rest of the world's saner governments ability to effectively discover terrorist and other activities.

Snowden took over 1.7 million files that we know of. The majority of those files had nothing to do with violations of privacy of the average U.S. citizen that the NSA may have been engaged in. For a really good explanation of what the NSA was doing try this article NSA speaks out on Snowden. The NSA gave unprecedented access to 60 Minutes and attempted to explain exactly what it was they were doing without spilling too many beans.

If Snowden had restricted himself to just those activities that were "illegally" committed against U.S. citizens there are many who believe he would have had a moral and legal leg to stand on in regards to claiming he was "a whistleblower". He didn't though. Instead he chose to violate his NSA Oath

A lot of people have a hard time understanding this next part. But, IMO and in the opinion of a lot of other people, many of whom are military or ex-military Snowden swore an oath that was unbreakable and binding. Manning swore a similar oath. In our minds there is no difference between treason committed by a civilian who swears an oath not to commit treason and a military person who swears a similar oath. The punishments may differ because of the courts whose jurisdictions the cases will be tried in. But, if you look it up the U.S. has laws about treason committed by citizens. I invite you to read them. IMO they clearly state that Snowden's actions can be called treason. Just as much as Manning's.

There are a lot of people who think that Snowden was perfectly OK in doing what he did. There are many reasons they give for justifying this stance:

Snowden was exposing a crime so his crime is negated. Read that again. And really think about it. Key Bank illegally foreclosed on my home. It was worth $300,000. Key bank broke the law. No one will prosecute Key Bank. I drive to Key Bank and steal $3 million dollars. Want to guess who is going to jail?

Snowden is a whistleblower and he only gave all that information to the journalists, China, and Russia because whistleblowers in this country get treated like crap, blackballed, and lose their jobs while nothing changes. Ok, I concede that whistleblower protections are haphazardly enforced and sometimes the Whistleblower does get the short end of the stick. But, again the rationale is that it is OK to commit Treason because following the rules and being a whistleblower is a shitty experience. Now if he had gone to the Peoria Times I might believe his BS story for why he chose not to be a brave whistleblower. But, he didn't. He ran straight to Hong Kong and gave who knows how much information to a bunch of foreign journalists and a couple of U.S. ones. Then promptly went through China and Russia for asylum. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. You can bet that Snowden wasn't granted asylum just for the PR black eye that the U.S. got.

These are the top two that I seem to run across a lot. Go to court and try to use any of these as a defense for breaking the law. I double dog dare you. Just be sure to send me your inmate ID when you do so I know where to send the care packages.

[SciFi Chick]

He had an agenda. One he openly advertised for years before he did it.

What was his agenda, and where did he openly advertise it? Sincere question, and since you already seem to know the answer, I'm gonna be lazy and not google it.

BTW, I'm very disappointed in the movie about him. I was really looking forward to watching it, because I like the actor playing Snowden, but I discovered that they're pretending he stole all those files in a spur of the moment, which is why your comment about his agenda really stood out to me.

[vendic]

quote[fisher]
Snowden was exposing a crime so his crime is negated. Read that again. And really think about it. Key Bank illegally foreclosed on my home. It was worth $300,000. Key bank broke the law. No one will prosecute Key Bank. I drive to Key Bank and steal $3 million dollars. Want to guess who is going to jail?
[/quote]

Though I would replace that with, you steal bread to feed your family, want to guess who's going to jail?
Or even, you're black and get sold as part of kids for cash.

All of which explain why the system is broken.

[SciFiFisher]

quote[fisher]
Snowden was exposing a crime so his crime is negated. Read that again. And really think about it. Key Bank illegally foreclosed on my home. It was worth $300,000. Key bank broke the law. No one will prosecute Key Bank. I drive to Key Bank and steal $3 million dollars. Want to guess who is going to jail?

Though I would replace that with, you steal bread to feed your family, want to guess who's going to jail?
Or even, you're black and get sold as part of kids for cash.

All of which explain why the system is broken.[/quote]

You have a point. But I was really trying to illustrate that you can't commit a crime to expose a crime and not suffer the consequences. You have to use legal or mostly legal channels to expose the crime.

[SciFiFisher]

He had an agenda. One he openly advertised for years before he did it.

What was his agenda, and where did he openly advertise it? Sincere question, and since you already seem to know the answer, I'm gonna be lazy and not google it.

BTW, I'm very disappointed in the movie about him. I was really looking forward to watching it, because I like the actor playing Snowden, but I discovered that they're pretending he stole all those files in a spur of the moment, which is why your comment about his agenda really stood out to me.

From what I know and from other sources Snowden openly discussed getting a job with an intelligence agency for the express purpose of getting information which he planned to use against the U.S.

Credible news agencies (or mostly credible) even printed this information in 2013 shortly after the story came out.

USA Today

The South China Morning Post reported Monday that Snowden told it in an interview that he sought a position as an analyst with the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton so he could collect proof about the NSA's secret surveillance program and make them public.

Even more damning is the fact that the Washington Post, whose reporter was one of the first ones who received leaked information, and received a Pulitzer Prize for being complicit in Snowden's crimes is saying that Snowden shouldn't receive a pardon. Apparently there is no honor among thieves.

I can't recall or find the source at the moment (and I am supposed to be at work) but he allegedly even bragged about planning this caper on social media. Possibly his Facebook page?

[Cyborg Girl]

Wait what? He went in looking for trouble? Eww.

(I still think the NSA is full of shit though.)

[geonuc]

But I was really trying to illustrate that you can't commit a crime to expose a crime and not suffer the consequences. You have to use legal or mostly legal channels to expose the crime.

There is actually a legal doctrine that states 'that which is necessary cannot be illegal'. It's usually meant to absolve behavior that in ordinary circumstances would be criminal but is necessary to prevent greater harm. A great, albeit fictional, example is when Group Captain Mandrake vandalized a Coke machine to get coins for the pay phone to attempt to call off a nuclear strike in Dr. Strangelove. He would be absolved from the criminal act of vandalism because it was a necessary act.

Doubt it would work with Snowden but if he ever stands trial, I wouldn't be surprised if his defense team tried to invoke the doctrine. However, I don't know of any legal precedent that says criminal whistleblowing isn't covered by the doctrine.

[SciFi Chick]

There is actually a legal doctrine that states 'that which is necessary cannot be illegal'. It's usually meant to absolve behavior that in ordinary circumstances would be criminal but is necessary to prevent greater harm.

Is this where self defense comes from?

[SciFi Chick]

Wait what? He went in looking for trouble? Eww.

I know!

[SciFiFisher]

There is actually a legal doctrine that states 'that which is necessary cannot be illegal'. It's usually meant to absolve behavior that in ordinary circumstances would be criminal but is necessary to prevent greater harm.

Is this where self defense comes from?

Based on my past experience as a military policeman it wasn't considered a crime per se to defend yourself in the past. It has only been a fairly recent development that any form of self defense up to and including lethal force was not considered OK as long as you had a pretty reasonable situation. I.e. Guy with a machete comes at you. You shoot him. There is an inquest. You would never be arrested or charged. You are at home watching Johnny Carson when you realize there is a guy in your window climbing in. You shoot him. There is an inquest. You are not arrested. In both cases the Grand Jury or possibly just a Magistrate would rule the shootings justified because you were defending yourself and/or your property.

Today it's a little more nuanced. (cue the British understatement). The statement Geonuc referenced IIRC refers to a scenario in which you know someone is breaking the law or committing grave harm. So, you break the law to stop them. I.e. Let's pretend that Snowden was actually a good guy. He is doing his usual BAH Contractor thing and playing Mahjong on the NSA computer while trolling the Alt-Right feed when he discovers a plot by the U.S. to infect a bunch of American Muslims with a genetically altered Super Flu that only targets people who say "Allah Akhbar!". Don't laugh I am sure someone has a grant right now to research something similar to this. He realizes the only way to stop the plot is to go the Washington Post and leak the story to them. It's a strict violation of the Security Oath he took as a contractor. But, in this scenario he would be able to get a judge or jury to consider his "treason" as justifiable in order to prevent a bigger crime.

[SciFiFisher]

Wait what? He went in looking for trouble? Eww.

(I still think the NSA is full of shit though.)

One does not preclude the other. The NSA may very well have over stepped it's bounds. It's possible it may have been breaking the law. Probably not through malice per se. There are very reputable people who question the intelligence gathering methods of the U.S. all the time. They too want people to be held accountable. Notice that they did not steal 1.7 million documents/records and share them with the Chinese and the Russians. Just a trifle difference in approaches.

[geonuc]

There is actually a legal doctrine that states 'that which is necessary cannot be illegal'. It's usually meant to absolve behavior that in ordinary circumstances would be criminal but is necessary to prevent greater harm.

Is this where self defense comes from?

Not quite, although the legal concepts are related. Criminal statutes provide for self-defense (with reasonable force).

[geonuc]

There is actually a legal doctrine that states 'that which is necessary cannot be illegal'. It's usually meant to absolve behavior that in ordinary circumstances would be criminal but is necessary to prevent greater harm.

Is this where self defense comes from?

Based on my past experience as a military policeman it wasn't considered a crime per se to defend yourself in the past. It has only been a fairly recent development that any form of self defense up to and including lethal force was not considered OK as long as you had a pretty reasonable situation. I.e. Guy with a machete comes at you. You shoot him. There is an inquest. You would never be arrested or charged. You are at home watching Johnny Carson when you realize there is a guy in your window climbing in. You shoot him. There is an inquest. You are not arrested. In both cases the Grand Jury or possibly just a Magistrate would rule the shootings justified because you were defending yourself and/or your property.

Today it's a little more nuanced. (cue the British understatement). The statement Geonuc referenced IIRC refers to a scenario in which you know someone is breaking the law or committing grave harm. So, you break the law to stop them. I.e. Let's pretend that Snowden was actually a good guy. He is doing his usual BAH Contractor thing and playing Mahjong on the NSA computer while trolling the Alt-Right feed when he discovers a plot by the U.S. to infect a bunch of American Muslims with a genetically altered Super Flu that only targets people who say "Allah Akhbar!". Don't laugh I am sure someone has a grant right now to research something similar to this. He realizes the only way to stop the plot is to go the Washington Post and leak the story to them. It's a strict violation of the Security Oath he took as a contractor. But, in this scenario he would be able to get a judge or jury to consider his "treason" as justifiable in order to prevent a bigger crime.

The doctrine of necessity as I learned it wasn't meant to apply to self-defense nor is it normally applied to those who break a law to prevent a crime. It's more breaking a law to prevent greater harm to society, which may include preventing harm to a person, including yourself. Black's Law Dictionary provides the example of the latter where a hiker lost in a blizzard breaks into a cabin to gain shelter and food. It's also commonly applied to trespass - harming another's property to protect life or health.

As I said, I think it would be a stretch to apply it to Snowden but legal doctrines get stretched all the time.