On-Topic Edward Snowden: NSA Whistleblower Revealed, Interview

[bankside]

There is no such thing as an "international travel privilege." Unless you think like the government of communist East Germany or the Soviet Union or North Korea.

A country may decline to acknowledge your identity document, but that doesn't change your nationality. And since permission is not applicable to international travel, you're free to go to any country that will have you.

 

[tigerfan482]

There is no such thing as an "international travel privilege." Unless you think like the government of communist East Germany or the Soviet Union or North Korea.

A country may decline to acknowledge your identity document, but that doesn't change your nationality. And since permission is not applicable to international travel, you're free to go to any country that will have you.

The privilege comes inherently with the identification document. Since the vast majority of countries don't allow you to travel to or within them without a valid passport (even freedom loving Hong Kong wasn't going to let Snowden leave until Ecuador gave him travel documents), then it is indeed a privilege that is inherent to the identification document.

You also don't have a right to travel to another country. You may ask them and they can either allow you in or not, but there is no inherent right that you have to go there. So again, there is a privilege there (not necessarily one granted by the US), but a privilege all the same.

 

[Corny]

Didn't know that human rights are now privileges.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a13

Articles 13 - 15

 

[Lostlover]

Hu ... what? There are certainly much easier ways for an US american to get into an EU country. It's much easier than the other way around, even if you want to work here.
Apart from that, he can't even file asylum in most countries because he needs to be in those countries to do so. Something that he can't accomplish since he has no passport to enter a plane since Obama had his passport invalidated. Which is, as I have previously pointed out, a human rights violation.

Having a passport is a human rights requirement even if the person is a fugitive? Really? What are you basing this off of? Feelings? (I'm being serious.)

Could you please show me an international human rights document where a fugitive being denied a passport is having his rights violated?

And no country revokes passports for fugitives?

 

[tigerfan482]

Didn't know that human rights are now privileges.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a13

Articles 13 - 15

Excellent. Thank you for helping me prove my point. A couple of things to note:

- Snowden is not being denied movement or residence inside the US. That is self-imposed.
- Snowden is not being denied entry into the United States. In fact, they've asked for him to come back.
- Snowden does not have the right to enter any country he chooses. Countries have the right to admit or deny whomever they so choose. If they choose not to admit him because he doesn't have a valid passport, then he has no right to do so anyway.
- Snowden has the right to request asylum (which he has done) from persecution, not prosecution.
- Snowden does not have the right to request asylum to avoid prosecution. He is being accused of a criminal act, not a political crime. He is being pursued for leaking classified information, not because he has a particular political view.
- Snowden has not had his citizenship revoked. He has had his passport revoked. He is still a citizen of the United States.
- Snowden is not being arbitrarily denied citizenship anywhere. There is a firm legal basis for which many countries are denying him asylum and/or citizenship.

As I said before, these rights are not given (or declared, whichever term you want to attach to it) for people to avoid answering for crimes they have committed. It should also be noted that almost all of the countries that voted on the Declaration of Human Rights have laws against unauthorized release of classified information.

 

[opinterph]

Revocation of the passport is permitted under US law.

The Department of State may revoke the passport of a person who is the subject of an outstanding Federal warrant. Revocation of the passport can result in loss of the fugitive's lawful residence status, which may lead to his or her deportation. If the fugitive is wanted on State charges only, it will be necessary to obtain a warrant on a [Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution] complaint because the Department of State is only authorized to revoke the passports of persons named in Federal warrants.

9-15.640 Revocation of United States Passports (US Attorneys’ Manual)

It is my impression that under International law, the legal obligation for a country to comply with an extradition request may depend upon the laws of the country from which extradition is sought. For example, the crime for which Mr. Snowden is charged may not be a crime in the host country and that condition may excuse their obligation to extradite. It is also true that if a host country views the character and conduct of the actions for which Mr. Snowden is sought to be of a political nature, that country is excused from its obligation to extradite.

 

[tigerfan482]

It is my impression that under International law, the legal obligation for a country to comply with an extradition request may depend upon the laws of the country from which extradition is sought. For example, the crime for which Mr. Snowden is charged may not be a crime in the host country and that condition may excuse their obligation to extradite. It is also true that if a host country views the character and conduct of the actions for which Mr. Snowden is sought to be of a political nature, that country is excused from its obligation to extradite.

This is indeed the case. However, what I find funny is that many of these countries who have volunteered to help Snowden out either directly or indirectly (China vis a vis Hong Kong, Russia, Bolivia, Ecuador, etc.) have their own internal laws against espionage that are much tougher. In many of these countries, you don't get the benefits of a trial - they just disappear you. It's funny how it's criminal if it happens to them but "fighting for freedom and being politically motivated" when it happens to another country.

 

[bankside]

Those countries also generally have laws against political persecution, and in favour of accepting refugees who face political persecution.

To date, Snowden's only avowed motive is to generate policy debate about the legitimacy of a government practice. It is only the most transparent insinuation that he has sought to profit from his actions.

 

[bankside]

Revocation of the passport is permitted under US law.



It is my impression that under International law, the legal obligation for a country to comply with an extradition request may depend upon the laws of the country from which extradition is sought. For example, the crime for which Mr. Snowden is charged may not be a crime in the host country and that condition may excuse their obligation to extradite. It is also true that if a host country views the character and conduct of the actions for which Mr. Snowden is sought to be of a political nature, that country is excused from its obligation to extradite.

I agree with your direction but in fact no country has any obligation to extradite, unless they voluntarily enter into a mutual arrangement with the country seeking extradition.

 

[Lostlover]

Those countries also generally have laws against political persecution, and in favour of accepting refugees who face political persecution.

To date, Snowden's only avowed motive is to generate policy debate about the legitimacy of a government practice. It is only the most transparent insinuation that he has sought to profit from his actions.

And how does releasing that governments spy on other governments (shock!!!) a part of transparency?

Snowden's going to need a lot more than positive thinking from his "supporters," who admittedly on here can't inconvenience themselves enough to stop using Google and Microsoft.

 

[opinterph]

Snowden's going to need a lot more than positive thinking from his "supporters," who admittedly on here can't inconvenience themselves enough to stop using Google and Microsoft.

Should I cancel my account with Comcast?

 

[opinterph]

- Snowden does not have the right to request asylum to avoid prosecution. He is being accused of a criminal act, not a political crime. He is being pursued for leaking classified information, not because he has a particular political view.

To wit:


18 U.S.C. 641 Theft of Government Property

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The word ‘‘value’’ means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.


18 U.S.C. 793(d) Unauthorized Communication of National Defense information

Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


18 U.S.C. 798(a)(3) Willful Communication of Classified Communications Intelligence Information to an Unauthorized Person

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government;

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

 

[bankside]

And how does releasing that governments spy on other governments (shock!!!) a part of transparency?

Snowden's going to need a lot more than positive thinking from his "supporters," who admittedly on here can't inconvenience themselves enough to stop using Google and Microsoft.

Well I do take issue with your government spying on my neighbours. You're changing the subject to talk about how it spies on its allies. I thought we had a separate thread for that. There is a huge difference between "Of course we spy on people with Al Qaeda ties as soon as they come to our attention" and "Of course we spy on absolutely everyone until we figure we might have something."

I don't understand how this can even be debated following the Cold War. We saw how totalitarian government act. I thought we were supposed to have won.

 

[bankside]

As I said before, these rights are not given (or declared, whichever term you want to attach to it) for people to avoid answering for crimes they have committed. It should also be noted that almost all of the countries that voted on the Declaration of Human Rights have laws against unauthorized release of classified information.

I think there is probably only one country that criminalises the release of US classified information.

 

[kallipolis]

Manning


Nope. He was charged with 22 various counts. He pleaded guilty to 10 of them. The government is current pursuing the case of aiding and abetting the enemy. He is still considered guilty to the 10 charges he pleaded guilty to.

The most serious charge, aiding the enemy, carries a maximum sentence of life in custody without parole. In pre-trial hearings the judge, Colonel Denise Lind, ruled that to make the charge stick the government must prove that Manning knowingly gave intelligence information, via WikiLeaks, to al-Qaida and its affiliates, including al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. Crucially, Lind has set the prosecution the challenge of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Manning had "a general evil intent", in that he "had to know he was dealing, directly or indirectly, with an enemy of the US". The soldier cannot be found guilty if he acted "inadvertently, accidentally, or negligently".

 

[kallipolis]

Those countries also generally have laws against political persecution, and in favour of accepting refugees who face political persecution.

To date, Snowden's only avowed motive is to generate policy debate about the legitimacy of a government practice. It is only the most transparent insinuation that he has sought to profit from his actions.

Worth repeating

 

[tigerfan482]

Those countries also generally have laws against political persecution, and in favour of accepting refugees who face political persecution.

To date, Snowden's only avowed motive is to generate policy debate about the legitimacy of a government practice. It is only the most transparent insinuation that he has sought to profit from his actions.

He is not facing political persecution. He is facing criminal prosecution. And motive does not have any bearing when you break a law except to determine the degree to which to charge you. He could have easily spurned policy debate through legal avenues. He didn't even attempt those. Read what Opinterph posted above. The law doesn't say "...unless you are attempting to start a policy debate." There aren't exception for breaking the law just because you don't agree with it.

Well I do take issue with your government spying on my neighbours. You're changing the subject to talk about how it spies on its allies. I thought we had a separate thread for that. There is a huge difference between "Of course we spy on people with Al Qaeda ties as soon as they come to our attention" and "Of course we spy on absolutely everyone until we figure we might have something."

I don't understand how this can even be debated following the Cold War. We saw how totalitarian government act. I thought we were supposed to have won.

This can be debated because it has yet to be shown the government spies on everyone.

And we have seen what Totalitarian governments look like, which is how we know that the US isn't one. Hyperbole gets people nowhere.

I think there is probably only one country that criminalises the release of US classified information.

They all criminalize the release of their own information though and have much harsher punishments for it. That's the point I was making.

The most serious charge, aiding the enemy, carries a maximum sentence of life in custody without parole. In pre-trial hearings the judge, Colonel Denise Lind, ruled that to make the charge stick the government must prove that Manning knowingly gave intelligence information, via WikiLeaks, to al-Qaida and its affiliates, including al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. Crucially, Lind has set the prosecution the challenge of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Manning had "a general evil intent", in that he "had to know he was dealing, directly or indirectly, with an enemy of the US". The soldier cannot be found guilty if he acted "inadvertently, accidentally, or negligently".

You're talking about one charge that he pleaded not guilty to. There are 10 others that he has pleaded guilty to. Even if he is found not guilty on this one charge, he is still guilty of those 10 he pleaded guilty to.

 

[bankside]

This can be debated because it has yet to be shown the government spies on everyone.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygre...-congressional-testimony-on-nsa-surveillance/

Whistleblower Edward Snowden isn’t the only one looking for a safe haven since he began leaking a series of top secret documents on the National Security Agency’s surveillance practices. So has Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, whose statements to Congress earlier this year on NSA methods were exposed by Snowden’s leaks as being highly misleading. And as many call for Clapper’s resignation, he’s finally issued a public apology.

In a letter sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Diane Feinstein and published on the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s website, Clapper admitted that his response in a March hearing to a question from Senator Ron Wyden on NSA data collection was “clearly erroneous.”

If pleading guilty to a crime makes someone guilty as charged, then the National Intelligence Director apologizing for lying to Congress makes him guilty of what Snowden says about NSA lies.

The United States sees fit to spy on me and my neighbours. It's offensive because we're free citizens in allied countries. I don't need a foreign government monitor reading my e-mails like some cheap Soviet bureaucrat. At this point I think there are any number of countries that should give Snowden a grant of citizenship just for bringing the situation to our attention.

 

[tigerfan482]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygre...-congressional-testimony-on-nsa-surveillance/

If pleading guilty to a crime makes someone guilty as charged, then the National Intelligence Director apologizing for lying to Congress makes him guilty of what Snowden says about NSA lies.

That's not true in the least. Clapper was asked "do you collect any data at all", which the metadata they are legally able to collect counts as, but because he wasn't in a classified briefing, he had to answer "no". After the hearing, he did expand upon his answer with Sen. Wyden to clarify, but couldn't publicly change his answer until the program was declassified. However, it no way insinuates spying on Americans nor does it function as any proof of anything Snowden says being true.

The United States sees fit to spy on me and my neighbours. It's offensive because we're free citizens in allied countries. I don't need a foreign government monitor reading my e-mails like some cheap Soviet bureaucrat. At this point I think there are any number of countries that should give Snowden a grant of citizenship just for bringing the situation to our attention.

Again, where is the proof the United States is spying on citizens of other countries? Again, the only thing I've seen is that they collect metadata from all around the world for tracking what numbers their targets call. Their operations in other countries have only been shown so far to target other governments, which is a common occurrence in all countries. You're just like Americans screaming that they're being spied on with no proof of such acts at all.

 

[bankside]

Buckets of it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-nsa-files