[News] What should happen to the NSA Whistleblower?

[Chad Sexington]

An interview with Edward Snowden

 

[PatrThom]

The Law, however, makes no real distinction for altruism. Blind Justice, and all. So there still remains the question of whether or not he should be punished for his actions. I have absolutely no idea how/if the Whistleblower Protection Act would apply here.

--Patrick

 

[Eriol]

The really, really fun thing about this type of secrecy is that it requires ongoing secrecy. If you are taken to court or investigated under it, then anyone involved becomes gagged. Thus there is no way to fight back about it publicly.

So we can never find out if it is affecting innocent people, even though they are innocent and their rights are being trampled and lives ruined, they can't talk about it, unless they do want to face prison for commiting the crime of speaking out against government corruption.

This needs to be re-quoted because you said it so well. That IS one of the bigger problems with it.

 

[CrimsonSoul]

I agree with stienman. The dude broke some serious laws against his access level that may well border on the treasonous. On the other hand, the things he is releasing is very, very important to the American citizen. So the military guy in me is saying, "Charge him!" and the citizen side of me is saying, "Give Obama's Nobel Peace Prize because that dude hasn't done shit to earn it."

The military side of you shouldn't say that. Or oath is to support and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. What this administration is doing goes against that oath specifically the the fourth amendment so you should be defending him.

 

[CrimsonSoul]

That's one of the reasons it's so insidious, and why Obama is admitting it while saying, "if Americans don't trust the government, then we're going to have some problems."

He's honestly going for the, "the innocent need not worry" angle, and people at buying it.

The really, really fun thing about this type of secrecy is that it requires ongoing secrecy. If you are taken to court or investigated under it, then anyone involved becomes gagged. Thus there is no way to fight back about it publicly.

So we can never find out if it is affecting innocent people, even though they are innocent and their rights are being trampled and lives ruined, they can't talk about it, unless they do want to face prison for commiting the crime of speaking out against government corruption.

It doesn't matter if it's only affecting those guilty. If it is targeting any American citizen without a warrant being g issued then it is illegal

 

[Eriol]

The military side of you shouldn't say that. Or oath is to support and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. What this administration is doing goes against that oath specifically the the fourth amendment so you should be defending him.

You seen B5? Sheridan says this almost verbatim (the first part I mean) when he's starting to take out the tyrannical government.

Edit: and spoilers don't apply if a series ended more than 10 years ago, and I think this one ended about 15 years ago.

 

[bhamv3]

I'll take mysterious disappearance for one hundred please.

 

[strawman]

It doesn't matter if it's only affecting those guilty. If it is targeting any American citizen without a warrant being g issued then it is illegal

Not necessarily.

...they don’t need a warrant to get this information, because technically, in the eyes of the law, it doesn’t belong to you—it belongs to your phone company, or your Internet-service provider. This view dates back to 1979, when the Supreme Court ruled that while the content of your phone conversations is private and would require a warrant to monitor, the details of who you called and for how long (the “toll record”) belongs to the phone company.

(source)

Details:

In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that a pen register is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company." Since the defendant had disclosed the dialed numbers to the telephone company so they could connect his call, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers he dialed. The court did not distinguish between disclosing the numbers to a human operator or just the automatic equipment used by the telephone company.

The Smith decision left pen registers completely outside constitutional protection. If there was to be any privacy protection, it would have to be enacted by Congress as statutory privacy law.

(source)

Perhaps people now think of telephone metadata as private, but the supreme court didn't think so in 1979, and congress chose not to enact any privacy laws that would protect telephone metadata.

It may also be that they've overstepped their bounds. Perhaps the number dialed isn't private, but the location dialed from might be.

Regardless, it's not illegal to do so to individual citizens - but a valid question is it legal to do it to all citizens at once? A targeted investigation is one thing, but spying on everyone without any cause seems a stretch.

 

[CrimsonSoul]

Still of it belongs to the phone company and not me they still need a warrant to get that info from the phone company and not just a nsa letter saying "lol all your calls are belong to us now"

 

[strawman]

Still of it belongs to the phone company and not me they still need a warrant to get that info from the phone company and not just a nsa letter saying "lol all your calls are belong to us now"

Sure, they need a warrant against the phone company to take information that belongs to the phone company. The letter was actually a warrant, reviewed and signed by a judge:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

And the letter expires 90 days after it was signed, which means they had to send a new one, signed by a judge, four times a year, every year since the program started.

 

[CrimsonSoul]

Sure, they need a warrant against the phone company to take information that belongs to the phone company. The letter was actually a warrant, reviewed and signed by a judge:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

And the letter expires 90 days after it was signed, which means they had to send a new one, signed by a judge, four times a year, every year since the program started.

... What reasonable suspicion did they have to get the data on every person n that is a customer to that phone provider?

And sorry for typos in on my phone

 

[strawman]

... What reasonable suspicion did they have to get the data on every person n that is a customer to that phone provider?

And sorry for typos in on my phone

According to the warrant, "This court having found that the Application of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for an Order requiring the production of tangible things from Verizon...satisfies the requirements of 50 U.S.C. section 1861."

The warrant doesn't have to state the suspicion, and since we don't have a copy of the application we might not ever know, however we can look up 50 USC 1861, which does specify the conditions that must be met for the FBI to have valid reason to get Verizon's records. So you can assume that at least this judge felt the conditions of this section were met.

You'll remember this as part of the patriot act - there was a big hullaballoo about them getting our library circulation records, but few thought this meant any business record, including phone and credit card records.

Of course, the judge may be wrong, or the law congress passed as part of the patriot act may be wrong, but at the moment it appears that congress gave the FBI the keys to this data, and we've just been letting them have it.

 

[CrimsonSoul]

According to the warrant, "This court having found that the Application of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for an Order requiring the production of tangible things from Verizon...satisfies the requirements of 50 U.S.C. section 1861."

The warrant doesn't have to state the suspicion, and since we don't have a copy of the application we might not ever know, however we can look up 50 USC 1861, which does specify the conditions that must be met for the FBI to have valid reason to get Verizon's records. So you can assume that at least this judge felt the conditions of this section were met.

You'll remember this as part of the patriot act - there was a big hullaballoo about them getting our library circulation records, but few thought this meant any business record, including phone and credit card records.

Of course, the judge may be wrong, or the law congress passed as part of the patriot act may be wrong, but at the moment it appears that congress gave the FBI the keys to this data, and we've just been letting them have it.

Of course it all goes back to the unpatriotic act. Thank you for looking this info up and giving it to me btw. But even though the reason they have satisfied the law it doesn't mean the law didn't violate the constitution and needs to be struck down

 

[CrimsonSoul]

You seen B5? Sheridan says this almost verbatim (the first part I mean) when he's starting to take out the tyrannical government.

Edit: and spoilers don't apply if a series ended more than 10 years ago, and I think this one ended about 15 years ago.

Now I can reply to this. No I've never seen that show but I've felt that way ever since I joined the military about 12 years ago. The reason being right after we took our oath the guy there asked which of us would lay down our lives for a devil worshiper. No one raised their hand. The guy looked at us and said he would because the constitution doesn't just protect the people who we agree with but it protects everyone regardless of their beliefs. It's something that's stuck with me and I believe just hearing him say that made me a better person. But that's why I said what I said and I've never heard of b5

 

[Eriol]

CrimsonSoul, Babylon 5 - If not wanting to click it, it was a sci-fi TV show in the early 90s. Was on for 5 years. Very love/hate when it came on, as unlike most shows at the time, most episodes were connected, rather than being one-offs like Star Trek. So more difficult to "get in to" but ultimately more rewarding IMO.

Back to our regularly scheduled thread:

Sorry to Godwin the thread, but it's actually pertinent. I was reading the Government quotes aggregation page on wikiquote, and came across this one:

What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.​

Mayer, Milton (1966) [1955]. They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (2nd edition ed.). University of Chicago Press. pp. p. 166. ISBN 0-226-51192-8.​

There's a lot of parallels to modern "democratic" government here, especially as it pertains to "intelligence" and especially counter-terrorism. Decisions made "behind closed doors" in general just don't turn out well, and propagate the "bad" things that we all see happening, regardless of the specific country involved. I think we need to remember this lesson: trusting our government leaders never turns out all that well. Constant scrutiny turns out a lot better.

 

[GasBandit]

CrimsonSoul, Babylon 5 - If not wanting to click it, it was a sci-fi TV show in the early 90s. Was on for 5 years. Very love/hate when it came on, as unlike most shows at the time, most episodes were connected, rather than being one-offs like Star Trek. So more difficult to "get in to" but ultimately more rewarding IMO.

Back to our regularly scheduled thread:

Sorry to Godwin the thread, but it's actually pertinent. I was reading the Government quotes aggregation page on wikiquote, and came across this one:

What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.​

Mayer, Milton (1966) [1955]. They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (2nd edition ed.). University of Chicago Press. pp. p. 166. ISBN 0-226-51192-8.​

There's a lot of parallels to modern "democratic" government here, especially as it pertains to "intelligence" and especially counter-terrorism. Decisions made "behind closed doors" in general just don't turn out well, and propagate the "bad" things that we all see happening, regardless of the specific country involved. I think we need to remember this lesson: trusting our government leaders never turns out all that well. Constant scrutiny turns out a lot better.

Those who do not learn the lessons of the past and all that.


There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation. – James Madison

 

[Bowielee]

I have to admit to drawing parallels to 9/11 and the bombing of the Reichstag before.

 

[CrimsonSoul]

CrimsonSoul, Babylon 5

OOOOHHHHHHH I know that show now.

 

[Dave]

The military side of you shouldn't say that. Or oath is to support and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. What this administration is doing goes against that oath specifically the the fourth amendment so you should be defending him.

As of right now we don't know that anyone did anything illegal. Unethical, yes. Illegal? Remains to be seen. So the oath in this case does not apply. Dude not only broke the chain of command, but he himself had made oaths of secrecy and broke them. I don't know yet whether he's a hero or a danger, but he did break the law whereas the people he is accusing may not have.

 

[Eriol]

As of right now we don't know that anyone did anything illegal. Unethical, yes. Illegal? Remains to be seen. So the oath in this case does not apply. Dude not only broke the chain of command, but he himself had made oaths of secrecy and broke them. I don't know yet whether he's a hero or a danger, but he did break the law whereas the people he is accusing may not have.

I believe the argument is that the surveillance laws themselves are breaking the highest law you guys have, the constitution, so if you're breaking a "lower" law to help enforce a "higher" one... that's where it gets messy.

 

[Dave]

I believe the argument is that the surveillance laws themselves are breaking the highest law you guys have, the constitution, so if you're breaking a "lower" law to help enforce a "higher" one... that's where it gets messy.

If they received the types of okays they say they have from the courts and congress, then what they did under the Patriot Act is not illegal.

 

[CrimsonSoul]

If they received the types of okays they say they have from the courts and congress, then what they did under the Patriot Act is not illegal.

Congress and a judge can ok any and everything they want but if it goes against the Constitution it is still and invalid law

An example would be Congress/The Senate passed a law saying that badmouthing the president either in an online forum on in a public square is punishable by 10 years in prison and someone is charged and found guilty and sentenced to that 10 years in prison That's Congress and the Judge saying that hey This law is OK, but according to the Constitution this is still an invalid law and needs a Supreme Court review and/or Jury Nullification

 

[Dave]

But until that happens it is legal. I know what you are saying, but no laws seem to have been broken. Whether or not the level of legality remains is the next question.

 

[Ravenpoe]

And sorry for typos in on my phone

YOU FOOL! You've led them right to us!

 

[Bowielee]

If they received the types of okays they say they have from the courts and congress, then what they did under the Patriot Act is not illegal.

This line of thinking is very dangerous, and also one of the reasons we have such an unconstitutional act as the Patriot Act in the first place. We're allowing our government to create and maintain unconstitutional laws and basically letting them know it's OK through either complacency or compliance.

It's pretty much the most anti-american thing I can think of. We pride ourselves as being a country based on the power of the people, but over the last few decades we've let our rights be systematically be stripped by our government.

 

[strawman]

Let's be clear.

What they're doing is probably not illegal.

It may be unconstitutional.

Far from being dangerous, it's necessary to maintain that line of thinking, particularly if we choose to attack it and have it struck down.

This could, in fact, be the watershed event that gets the American public riled up enough to really take a close look at the Patriot Act and get rid of those items that are wrong.

 

[Bubble181]

Let's be clear.

What they're doing is probably not illegal.

It may be unconstitutional.

Far from being dangerous, it's necessary to maintain that line of thinking, particularly if we choose to attack it and have it struck down.

This could, in fact, be the watershed event that gets the American public riled up enough to really take a close look at the Patriot Act and get rid of those items that are wrong.

Let's hope so. Or it could be the first (well, fifth, sixth,...) step in an ever-increasing creep of government control as the Land of the Free gives up their freedoms because of fear, fear and more fear. In which case, the terrorists have won.

 

[Espy]

Let's be clear.

What they're doing is probably not illegal.

It may be unconstitutional.

Far from being dangerous, it's necessary to maintain that line of thinking, particularly if we choose to attack it and have it struck down.

This could, in fact, be the watershed event that gets the American public riled up enough to really take a close look at the Patriot Act and get rid of those items that are wrong.

or maybe HITLER.

 

[SpecialKO]

The story seems to be falling apart a bit. I am really worried that if this whole thing gets walked back, the discussion around the Patriot Act will stop.

 

[Espy]

The only part of what he said that sounded really fishy to me was when he said that any analyst could tap anyone, even the president, anytime they wanted. I've heard several folks on NPR who are knowledgable in the matter say this is a remarkably false statement.

 

[SpecialKO]

The only part of what he said that sounded really fishy to me was when he said that any analyst could tap anyone, even the president, anytime they wanted. I've heard several folks on NPR who are knowledgable in the matter say this is a remarkably false statement.

There's that, and also that the "direct access" line was apparently substantially misrepresented (through misunderstanding of what it meant) by the Guardian.

On the good news front, to clear up these misrepresentations, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft are asking the government for permission to reveal their history and process for info requests by the Gov. Hopefully, this goes somewhere.

 

[PatrThom]

This could, in fact, be the watershed event that gets the American public riled up enough to really take a close look at the Patriot Act and get rid of those items that are wrong.

One can hope.

--Patrick

 

[CrimsonSoul]

And now he stopped talking about how they are getting Americans info and is now taking about how they are having china's stuff... Now he should be prosecuted

 

[redthirtyone]

Yup - moved from whistle blower to something a little more treasonous. I'm sure it has a lot to do with trying to gain favor with his chosen asylum. I've always been of the opinion if the government wants you dead, you're dead. It might take a while, but dead.

 

[SpecialKO]

Yeah, revealing to the public how the Patriot Act may violate their rights is one thing. Showing a foreign government what we do to gather foreign intelligence is something else entirely.