A deal for Snowden?

[quixotecoyote]

Picked this up on the Edward Snowden: Whistleblower or Criminal thread:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303595404579318884005698684

Jesselyn Radack: Why Edward Snowden Wouldn't Get a Fair Trial

Can you summarize for those of use who aren't WSJ subscribers?

 

[cosmicaug]

Can you summarize for those of use who aren't WSJ subscribers?

Try accessing it from a Google Search.

 

[cosmicaug]

For the NSA, it's just a mean to a end, a mission that was given to them by politicians even if it is ultimately foreign to many traditional practices of the organisation, and more importantly, something they would readily end if there is a genuine political will to do so.

Are you kidding?

 

[Bob001]

Can you summarize for those of use who aren't WSJ subscribers?

I posted this in the other Snowden thread.

Interesting account from an attorney who has handled national security cases about what Snowden would face at trial, and why he wouldn't have chance:

The Obama administration has charged more whistleblowers with mishandling secret information under the Espionage Act—a total of seven, so far—than all previous presidents combined.

The Espionage Act effectively hinders a person from defending himself before a jury in an open court, as past examples show. In the case of Mr. Drake, who disclosed massive fraud, waste and abuse in NSA surveillance programs, the government moved to preclude the word "whistleblowing" from trial. ..... Kiriakou, the first CIA officer to tell the media about waterboarding, could not tell the jury about his lack of intent. .... And Manning's salutary motive and intent, for revealing the military gunning down innocent civilians in Iraq as if they were playing "Call of Duty," was ruled inadmissible. ...

Mounting a legal defense will cost $1 million to $3 million.

Next, before trial begins, a defendant must visit a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF, to process information protected under the Classified Information Procedures Act. SCIFs are enclosed, government-controlled rooms for dealing with allegedly classified information allegedly leaked. This hermetically sealed, windowless room is the only place attorneys and their clients can discuss the evidence against the defendant.

The rules are airtight: Attorneys need security clearances to enter the SCIF. The response filings must be drafted in a government office, on a government computer, under the watch of a Justice Department security officer. Telephones, personal laptops and notepads are not allowed into the room. Attorneys cannot take notes. Additionally, the government files things in secret, under seal, to which a defendant has no access but must respond to. Unless the defendant's team is clairvoyant and has eidetic memory, they are at a profound disadvantage.

Etc.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...005698684.html

(If you hit the WSJ paywall try this: Sweep the full headline and do a Google search for it. Near the top of the results there is usually (but not always) a link to the full story.)

 

[ZouPrime]

Are you kidding?

Not at all. The NSA was created explicitely as a foreign intelligence organisation and not a domestic one (just like the CIA), and this has been part of its core principles since the begining. This principle has always been a difficult to deal with because the line between "domestic" and "foreign" has become more and more blury over time, but the core principle never changed. A buttload of people working today in the NSA (and elsewhere in the security community) are still dead against their organisation domestic surveillance operations, and were saying so since the Patriot Act. It's far from a controversial opinion.

 

[ZouPrime]

I posted this in the other Snowden thread.

Interesting account from an attorney who has handled national security cases about what Snowden would face at trial, and why he wouldn't have chance:

I agree that the US recent history of handling whistleblowers has much to be desired. But our lawyer friend here is framing the issue in a light that advantage him (and Snowden). The US government wouldn't even bother to deal with Snowden as a whistleblower, when the case of dealing with him as a spy is so more obvious.

 

[Bob001]

I agree that the US recent history of handling whistleblowers has much to be desired. But our lawyer friend here is framing the issue in a light that advantage him (and Snowden). The US government wouldn't even bother to deal with Snowden as a whistleblower, when the case of dealing with him as a spy is so more obvious.

That's exactly the lawyer's point. The government won't allow the defendant to offer a whistleblower defense or even use the word in court.

 

[Joey McGee]

I find this editorial poorly written and a joke. For just two examples,

A) No one could ever prove that Clapper lied (as in, intent to deceive) and deserves punishment, it's pretty daft they doth protest. He said he made a mistake and his superiors have accepted his explanation. They really don't bother telling you there is another side to the story which is suspect.

B) This paragraph is complete ********.

When someone reveals that government officials have routinely and deliberately broken the law, that person should not face life in prison at the hands of the same government. That’s why Rick Ledgett, who leads the N.S.A.’s task force on the Snowden leaks, recently told CBS News that he would consider amnesty if Mr. Snowden would stop any additional leaks.

Here's what they linked to in order to back that up...

JOHN MILLER: He's already said, "If I got amnesty, I would come back." Given the potential damage to national security, what would your thought on making a deal be?

RICK LEDGETT: So, my personal view is, yes, it's worth having a conversation about. I would need assurances that the remainder of the data could be secured, and my bar for those assurances would be very high. It would be more than just an assertion on his part.

MILLER: Is that a unanimous feeling?

LEDGETT: It's not unanimous.

He's clearly saying he would consider it because it could stop the leaks and the damage, not because he exposed illegalities and doesn't deserve to be punished. This is even more obvious when you read the following paragraph from his boss...

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER: This is analogous to a hostage-taker taking 50 people hostage, shooting 10 and then say, "If you give me full amnesty, I'll let the other 40 go." What do you do?

His bosses all the way up to the President wouldn't even consider it based on their statements. So why are they trying to use that argument from authority? Poor form.

All the news that's fit to print my ass, they left so much out on this one...

 

[ZouPrime]

That's exactly the lawyer's point. The government won't allow the defendant to offer a whistleblower defense or even use the word in court.

Yes, I get this. But MY point is that it's a bit lame for a lawyer to complain that his client won't have a fair whistleblower trial when the majority of what he is criticized for having done has nothing to do with whistleblowing. In other words, even if the treatment of whisleblowers in the US was everything one would expect from a liberal democracy, Snowden would still finish his life in ADX Florence.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I agree that the US recent history of handling whistleblowers has much to be desired. But our lawyer friend here is framing the issue in a light that advantage him (and Snowden). The US government wouldn't even bother to deal with Snowden as a whistleblower, when the case of dealing with him as a spy is so more obvious.

Spies don't hand classified material to the media. They operate in secret and nobody knows they are spies unless they get caught.

I wonder how many other mid-level consultants have helped themselves to the same material Snowden did, only we don't know it because they're selling it to buy candy and whores instead of going public. Given the rampant stupidity and lack of security at the NSA, the most likely answer is "many." I don't doubt Kim Jong Un is having a fat little chortle while he reads about what the US is doing to spy on his operation. In Powerpoint, so it's easy for everyone in the room to follow.

 

[ZouPrime]

Spies don't hand classified material to the media. They operate in secret and nobody knows they are spies unless they get caught.

I'm not talking about movie spies, I'm talking about the strict definition of what is spying in the context of disclosure of national secrets. To who Snowden disclosed this information doesn't really matter much, since it was then published to absolutely everyone to see.

I wonder how many other mid-level consultants have helped themselves to the same material Snowden did, only we don't know it because they're selling it to buy candy and whores instead of going public. Given the rampant stupidity and lack of security at the NSA, the most likely answer is "many." I don't doubt Kim Jong Un is having a fat little chortle while he reads about what the US is doing to spy on his operation. In Powerpoint, so it's easy for everyone in the room to follow.

That's a lot of speculation. You're not necessarily wrong; other instances may have happened (and I'm sure the NSA is having the same thoughts), but it doesn't really change the situation for Snowden.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I'm not talking about movie spies, I'm talking about the strict definition of what is spying in the context of disclosure of national secrets. To who Snowden disclosed this information doesn't really matter much, since it was then published to absolutely everyone to see.


That's a lot of speculation. You're not necessarily wrong; other instances may have happened (and I'm sure the NSA is having the same thoughts), but it doesn't really change the situation for Snowden.

I'm not talking about movie spies either. I'm talking about real spies like Aldrich Ames and Rob't Hanssen, who eluded the idiocracy in charge of national security for years, despite obvious clues.

I can see why these people want to keep the focus on Snowden and encourage the public to hate him. It takes the spotlight off their own incompetence.

 

[cosmicaug]

I'm not talking about movie spies, I'm talking about the strict definition of what is spying in the context of disclosure of national secrets.

That leaves little room for whistle blowing within similar contexts. That makes Daniel Ellsberg a spy and Drake a spy (a lot of the stuff being classified after the fact but that's close enough for government work, apparently). This is, in fact, the government position.

 

[ZouPrime]

I'm not talking about movie spies either. I'm talking about real spies like Aldrich Ames and Rob't Hanssen, who eluded the idiocracy in charge of national security for years, despite obvious clues.

Yes, and they were charged under the Espionnage Act. So will Snowden.

I don't understand why you think the law applies in somes cases but not in others. The technology and circumstances change, but there's no reason why Snowden (or Manning, a similar example) should get a free pass. And please, don't tell me "but they were whistleblowers", if that's still your argument then you're missing the point (just like the article author is missing the point).

I can see why these people want to keep the focus on Snowden and encourage the public to hate him. It takes the spotlight off their own incompetence.

This is a thread called "A deal for Snowden". So yeah, people are going to talk about him here. By the way, the first person who talked about Snowden was... Snowden himself. Paradoxically, he's completely superfluous to his own leak. He could have given everything to Greenwald and never revealed himself, and it wouldn't have change anything. It's not like he's important for the credibility of his own story.

The number one reason why people speaks so much of Snowden, is because Snowden chose to make the story so much about him.

 

[ZouPrime]

That leaves little room for whistle blowing within similar contexts. That makes Daniel Ellsberg a spy and Drake a spy (a lot of the stuff being classified after the fact but that's close enough for government work, apparently). This is, in fact, the government position.

There was never much room for whistleblowing, especially in the context of national secrets. That's the nature of the act, and even thought I think a better, more trustable federal whistleblowing system should be implemented, whistleblowers will always walk a very fine line, and will always face greater expectations.

Snowden stole close to 2M documents, the vast majority having nothing to do with domestic surveillance, and leaked them all. THEN, he tried to claim whistleblowing status on the comparatively small number of these documents that DO deal with domestic surveillance and ARE about the "conversation" he said he wanted to start. Obviously, the US prosecution aren't stupid and won't focus on this small "good will" act, and instead will focus on the totally preventable, voluntary and unnecessary leak of all these documents, the worst intelligence disaster in US history.

 

[babycondor]

...

Snowden stole close to 2M documents, the vast majority having nothing to do with domestic surveillance, and leaked them all. THEN, he tried to claim whistleblowing status on the comparatively small number of these documents that DO deal with domestic surveillance and ARE about the "conversation" he said he wanted to start. Obviously, the US prosecution aren't stupid and won't focus on this small "good will" act, and instead will focus on the totally preventable, voluntary and unnecessary leak of all these documents, the worst intelligence disaster in US history.

He showed how easy it was to create that "disaster." He exploited the vulnerability, in a big, messy, public way. As Charlie Wilkes has pointed out, there are probably others like Snowden who have already exploited (and continue to exploit) the vulnerabilities, in secret. So by going public, Snowden drew attention to some serious problems that should be addressed. Do the ends justify the means?

 

[ZouPrime]

He showed how easy it was to create that "disaster." He exploited the vulnerability, in a big, messy, public way. As Charlie Wilkes has pointed out, there are probably others like Snowden who have already exploited (and continue to exploit) the vulnerabilities, in secret. So by going public, Snowden drew attention to some serious problems that should be addressed. Do the ends justify the means?

Oh come on, Snowden never claimed he wanted to show vulnerabilities in how the NSA handled their top-secret information, it was all about the domestic surveillance programs since the beginning. If the NSA security was truly a concern of his, he would have never acted like that anyway.

This is no better than the "I was just showing that it was possible" defense of some hackers. The '90 are long gone, and this kind of easy copt-out doesn't work anymore. A unlocked door isn't an invitation to break in, it never was, and it never will.

 

[Joey McGee]

Snowden is a Paultard who thinks we need the gold standard and the government is one event away from turning into a "turnkey tyranny" and that people dying in bathtubs is a bigger problem than stopping terrorist attacks. That's his justification. Paul agrees, once musing that Snowden might get taken out by a drone strike.

These things are conveniently forgotten and not mentioned by his defenders for some reason...

 

[babycondor]

Oh come on, Snowden never claimed he wanted to show vulnerabilities in how the NSA handled their top-secret information, it was all about the domestic surveillance programs since the beginning. If the NSA security was truly a concern of his, he would have never acted like that anyway.

I don't claim to know what Snowden was thinking when he set all this in motion, or what his true concerns were. His actions had consequences, intended or not. I'm engaging in philosophical speculation here, wondering if "bad" actions can have "good" consequences.

This is no better than the "I was just showing that it was possible" defense of some hackers. The '90 are long gone, and this kind of easy copt-out doesn't work anymore. A unlocked door isn't an invitation to break in, it never was, and it never will.

I'm not defending his actions. If a thief walked into my house through an unlocked door and stole my stuff, I'd demand justice, but I'd also quit leaving the door unlocked, and be grateful for the lesson.

 

[ZouPrime]

I don't claim to know what Snowden was thinking when he set all this in motion, or what his true concerns were. His actions had consequences, intended or not. I'm engaging in philosophical speculation here, wondering if "bad" actions can have "good" consequences.

Well, I think bad actions can have good consequences, and vice-versa, but what I don't agree is using this to excuse Snowden, and to claim that somehow the US is wrong in wanting to prosecute him.

I'm not defending his actions. If a thief walked into my house through an unlocked door and stole my stuff, I'd demand justice, but I'd also quit leaving the door unlocked, and be grateful for the lesson.

True, but if the thief had stolen everything, making it basically the biggest break-in in the history of break-ins, you wouldn't be especially grateful. In fact, you would feel a bit outraged to see him justify his actions by saying he did it all to teach you a lesson. Somehow that wouldn't fly very far.