Remembering Edward Snowden

Trump tried that and failed. The Whistleblower complaint got to Congress. So facts show that you're just making it up.

 

Are you claiming that Trump is a whistleblower? You emit more psychobabble than the average poster.

 

Again note two thirds if not more of what is classified as top secret in DC isn't top secret because it threatens our national security. It is top secret because it would be harmful to someone's reputation if their abysmal stupidity and amazing levels of incompetence was revealed to the public at large.

Note the primary reason for official Washington's hate of Snowden and Assange is because much of their reveal revealed that incompetence.

 

he was not a whistleblower, he was a leaker, unless we plan to release all leakers from prison, then it's still a crime

whist blowers have to follow the rules for that protection, he did not do so

 

like all Americans, he would get the best defense he can afford

 

He's a traitor who provided aid and comfort to our enemies. Of course he should get a fair trial. He should fear that more than anything.

 

Oh, I see... So you made a mistake? Manners would suggest that you should apologize, instead of attacking me. I'll skip the rest of your irrelevant babble and check if there is anything of substance somewhere in your post.

"Justified"? No idea what that means. Justified by what? As I said, I believe what he did was heroic, i.e. something that benefits "we the people". But he deserves to go to jail.

In how many different ways do you want me to repeat something this simple.

 

In times of universal deception such as these, there is no such thing as a fair trial for those who expose the crimes of government.

Only for the perceptive amongst us, we just saw that play out in Belmarsh Prison with Julian Assange. We saw that last year or so with Chelsea Manning.

Snowden, Manning and Assange are heroes, paying the ultimate price as armchair traitors condemn them.

 

Well, no. I have 40 years' experience to put against your uninformed "armchair" crack. Snowden put lives in danger and deeply damaged US national security, while aiding and strengthening our enemies.

 

?????

What the f... hell are you talking about? I'm claiming Trump targeted whistleblowers.

Try reading more carefully. And also, try to stay on topic.

 

You are apparently unaware of the issue; you should watch, at least, a few minutes of the video. The government can prevent Snowden from using any of the information which he released, to show that it should not have been classified, by claiming that the information is classified. So his lawyers, no matter how good, will have zero evidence to disprove the government's charges, even though all the information has already been made public. The trial then becomes nothing but the government's word-- which the court accepts, without proof-- that the charged person has committed treason (merely sharing government information, while it would get one fired, & might be a relatively minor offense, does not automatically equate with treason). How is this a fair trial? It's a trial in name only, and a mockery of justice.

 

that is not part of the defense, he released classified documents, it's not up to him to declassify them

he either did it or he did not, I agree, the defense has no case, he has already confessed

 

Merely "Releasing documents," without authorization is NOT the charge. Treason is. Whether or not he is guilty of this, rests utterly on whether what he released was legitimately classified information OR whether it was information that was being unlawfully kept from the public.

It had only been the White House council who gave Obama his opinion that these programs could legally remain hidden. It's not much different from the W.H. lawyer who directed Trump's phone calls with foreign leaders be put into a top secret file. To decide on a treason charge, the judge & jury should be allowed to see the evidence. Though some of it has since been declassified, as Obama said he'd been meaning to get around to (after the stuff hit the fan), much has not. It is on this material that the charge hangs.

Snowden is not allowed to present it. The gov't will not present it either, BUT that doesn't mean Snowden walks due to lack of evidence. The jury will be instructed to just take the gov't at their word. That makes calling it a, "trial," nothing but a joke: the gov't says X; X should be believed w/o question; defendent says X is really Y; but defendent not allowed to show the documents, he has already released, to prove his assertion. What verdict, under that scenario, is possible, other than guilty of treason?

 

Snowden's problem, and the reason treason is an appropriate charge, is that roughly 95% of what he released, and made available to foreign powers, did not concern the programs to which you referred. That 95% concerned extremely sensitive collection and capabilities, the exposure of which did immense damage to the US.

 

As a legal matter, that's wrong. Classified information is classified information. There isn't a distinction between good or bad classified, nor is there any legal basis for classified to be considered, "unlawfully kept from the public." That just doesn't exist as a legal remedy in regards to releasing classified without authorization.

 

Oh, I know that's not a reasonable expectation, to get a jury (& judge) of people with the proper security clearance to see all the evidence (though it has already come out online). My point, though, was about how FAIR a trial Snowden could get, under these circumstances.

Yes, those are the rules. And there is no easy fix. But that does not mean it is fair.

 

No I think it's plenty fair. Otherwise you're saying that it's up to each individual to decide whether the classified information they have sworn to protect can be released based on their on personal opinion on whether it deserves to be classified or not.

 

Horse manure! Snowden harmed nobody except the treasonous bastards inside the NSA and elsewhere in the federal government.

He informed his fellow citizens and deserves an award.

 

I will do that if you will try to write a little better. Thanks

Now that your point is clear, to keep things in perspective, Trump DID target whistleblowers, but not as much as his predecessor did.

 

You are speaking out of ignorance.

 

Recall that in a time of universal deception, speaking the truth is a radical act as perceived by those who have been deceived.

Snowden is a hero. I wish him all the best.

The government urinates on the rule of law as a matter of routine.

Keep those rose-colored glasses on Jack, they keep you blissful.

 

Prior to my second retirement, I participated in the Snowden damage review. Upwards of 95% percent of what he released had nothing whatsoever to do with his complaint. He endangered lives and damaged US national security.

 

Golly Jack, you're making me cry.....

Just kidding.

I did my time in the 'Nam, so I watched and learned how the government works.

Plus, I've watched the entire documentary by Oliver Stone, "The Untold History of the United States", and that basically corroborated what I had learned on my own.

Snowden, Kiriakou, Sterling, Binney, Drake, Assange, Manning and all the rest did the right thing--they shined a spotlight on the criminal actions of the federal government.

You strongly support those criminal actions, I loudly oppose them.

 

As you wish. I'm not going to try to reason you out of a position you didn't reason yourself into. Anyone who uses "documentary" and "Oliver Stone" in the same sentence has already abandoned critical thinking.

 

Life 'reasoned' me into it Jack. The same thing happened to you.