SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The US government is entitled to every cent Edward Snowden earns from publishing his memoir, Permanent Record, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.
[...]
Snowden is still in exile in Russia, where he has been stranded since 2013. The classified documents Snowden leaked to multiple journalists that year sparked an intense debate over US surveillance practices and inspired some modest reforms. Snowden faces near-certain prosecution for espionage if he returns to the US.The US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit on September 17, the day Snowden's book first went on sale, seeking to seize Snowden's book profits. On Tuesday, just three months later, Judge Liam O'Grady granted the government's motion for summary judgment.
[...]
The judge also ruled that Snowden had breached his contractual responsibilities by giving speeches at the TED conference and other venues.
[...]
"Both the CIA and NSA secrecy agreements prohibit unauthorized publication of certain information, and Permanent Record discusses those types of information," O'Grady wrote. As a result, "the government is entitled to summary judgment."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 20 2019, @02:56AM (19 children)
Let me ask you this simple question, which should be easily answered by a simple yes or no:
Do you honestly, sincerely believe that, if he came back to the U.S., he would get a fair trial ?
(Score: 3, Informative) by srobert on Friday December 20 2019, @03:42AM
No.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 20 2019, @03:56AM
This presumes that he would get a trial.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 20 2019, @04:26AM (2 children)
It will be more of a carnival trial.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday December 20 2019, @04:56PM (1 child)
It will be more of a carnivore trial.
(considering the times we live in)
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday December 20 2019, @07:02PM
Carnivore [wikipedia.org], or Carnivore [wikipedia.org]?
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 20 2019, @05:52AM (13 children)
Let me ask you this simple question, which can be answered however you like:
What would constitute a fair trial?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 20 2019, @11:27AM (12 children)
A trial by a jury of his peers, all of whom have been instructed in the finer points of jury nullification. Give them the facts, then let them decide. But, prosecutors never want a jury that understands nullification.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 20 2019, @02:03PM
To be fair, my understanding of the practice of not allowing jurors that understand nullification onto juries is largely due to southern whites that refused to convict any white person of killing a black person.
To far too many, this didn't constitute a crime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 20 2019, @06:06PM (9 children)
Have you ever sat on a jury? If so, does the above comport with that experience?
In my experience, jury nullification is *never* a subject that comes up, either in voir dire [wikipedia.org] or during trial. While that may not be to your (or my) liking, the court *invariably* polls prospective jurors as to whether or not they are willing to *apply the law as written* in deliberations.
As such, you are suggesting that Snowden should get a fairer trial than Daniel Ellsberg, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou or Chelsea Manning (tried under the UCMJ [wikipedia.org], which differs from the system under which Snowden would be tried).
There are certainly extenuating circumstance WRT Snowden, especially the brokenness and lack of responsiveness from the DOD Inspector General's office and repeated retaliation against military and intelligence officers for whistle-blowing activities.
That said, Snowden obtained and released (and thank goodness he did!) classified documents for which he had no authorization. That's a felony in the United States.
As much as we may laud Snowden, and as much as we may think he should be given a medal, the law is the law. And the United States, if it wishes to remain a functioning state, must be a nation of laws.
And that extends far beyond Snowden. Perhaps the next president will pardon him, but I won't hold my breath.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 20 2019, @06:25PM (2 children)
All of those trials were unfair trials and we should really stop with the unfair trials. As such, I hope Snowden's trial would be fairer, though we all know it wouldn't be.
An unjust law is no law at all. Enforcing unjust laws is far worse than enforcing them, as it erodes respect for the rule of law. Snowden's duty to the Constitution was far more important than some pathetic authoritarian unconstitutional law. If we want to encourage whistleblowers to blow the whistle on the government's wrongdoing, which is a major pillar of democracy, then we cannot allow them to be destroyed for doing so. That's what these 'the law is the law' types don't get.
The truth is that he wouldn't be allowed to go into why he released the documents or try to justify his decision to the jury. Daniel Ellsberg knows how all this works and supports Snowden. If not for a screw up on the part of the government, Ellsberg would have been doomed.
We can't keep destroying whistleblowers based on technicalities as they reveal actual wrongdoing committed by the government. That makes no sense at all if what you seek is freedom and democracy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 20 2019, @08:24PM (1 child)
AC you replied to here. I agree with you. In fact, I pointed out (admittedly without much detail) that Snowden *tried* to follow the law and go through proper channels to expose the stuff he eventually did. And he was ignored.
We need to fix the structural problems that forced him to go outside the law. We need to fix what's broken. Which makes me glad that Snowden did what he did.
That's what's called Civil Disobedience [wikipedia.org], that has a long and storied tradition in US history. The way that's generally worked is that people of principle and conscience rise up against unjust laws in order to
point up the injustice/inappropriateness of those laws. Think about the Boston Tea Party, Susan B. Anthony, MLK, Rosa Parks, and on and on.
I'd point out that in almost all of those cases, legal action against such folks was not only pursued, but was expected by those performing such acts -- and the prosecutions themselves were used to show the injustice/wrongness of such laws.
What's more, Snowden *knew* what would happen, which is why he ran away. I posit that even if he'd stayed in the US, while he most certainly would have been convicted (and, if he ever returns, that will likely happen) and would be out of prison by now and on the book/lecture circuit making a lot more noise and convincing many more people that we need to stop spying on Americans and fix the broken whistle-blower systems in our government.
As it is now, the naysayers can just call him a traitor and a scofflaw, changing the conversation from one of "how do we fix the problems exposed by Snowden?" to "this guy is a traitor and a sell-out -- how much didn't he reveal and sell to the Russians? Why else would they give him sanctuary?"
Civil disobedience without adjudication of the unjust laws being protested almost always fails. I want us to succeed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 22 2019, @06:52PM
But, the American people are the "proper channel." Even if Snowden had handed over all the documents to the press immediately, I would have been fine with that. The People deserve to know if the government is violating the highest law of the land, and going through any so-called "proper channels" increases the risk that the whistleblower will be snuffed out before they can inform The People, which has happened to other whistleblowers.
Okay, but it would do no one any good for Snowden to face trial, only for him to not be allowed to mount an actual defense where he would be allowed to explain why he did what he did. Snowden has explained this himself, and it's due to the espionage act.
Why do you posit that?
They would do that regardless. Authoritarianism is a mental illness.
Nothing stops us from getting rid of those unjust laws, except that there are more worthless, cowardly authoritarians in 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' than some would like to admit.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Friday December 20 2019, @06:49PM (4 children)
The Supreme Law of the land had as its first amendment a clause that prevented Congress from passing laws limiting speech, so the idea of a felony charge for sharing documents is against the rule of law.
(Score: 2) by mobydisk on Tuesday December 24 2019, @04:21AM (3 children)
It sounds like Snowden signed a contract.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday December 24 2019, @04:49AM (2 children)
So sue him
(Score: 2) by mobydisk on Tuesday December 31 2019, @07:42PM (1 child)
They did. That's what the article is about.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday December 31 2019, @07:47PM
Ok, I was thinking about the various criminal proceedings.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 21 2019, @07:43PM
"the court *invariably* polls prospective jurors as to whether or not they are willing to *apply the law as written* in deliberations."
thanks. i'll rremember to lie my ass off about that. fucking treasonous scum.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday December 20 2019, @11:26PM
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."