Reply With Quote
They can try...
"Time to face the music...."
who? Snowden or NSA/CIA?
NSA/CIA will not be bridled, Congress will have some dog-and-pony shows, but won't bridle NSA/CIA. Perhaps a masquerade of bridling, but hte NSA/CIA are unstoppable.
btw, have no doubt that the NSA has every single character of spurstalk is stored in NSA computers, especially a forum en led "politics".
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-24-2013 at 11:27 AM.
They can try...
The man ed up when he used his name and face to get his 15 minutes, he could have easily just left all what he wanted us to know about the NSA on top of the manhole cover to Alex Jone's underground bunker but he didn't, now he must forever stay hidden or out of reach, sorry but that's what comes with the price you pay to become famous.
Just ask the vato that shot John Lennon.
its funni how this guy exposes more damaging then wikileak clown, yet aint doing
If it wasn't for Snowden, these programs would continue on unabated and grow ever larger, wasting more money and time. Frankly, the US needs to have a discussion on security, privacy, etc etc. The sooner, the better.
E.U. Panel Invites Snowden to Testify on Privacy Breaches
A European Parliament committee has invited Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who has leaked classified government do ents and is now in hiding in Russia, to testify via video link as part of an investigation into how to protect the privacy of European citizens.
The Parliament’s Justice and Civil Liberties Committee voted 36-2 with one abstention on Thursday to seek testimony from Mr. Snowden, whose exposures of the reach of surveillance activities by the United States on even its closest allies has raised global awareness about privacy issues and deeply embarrassed the Obama administration. Mr. Snowden has become a hero among civil liberty advocates in both Europe and the United States.
However, some dissenting voices in the Parliament tried to block the invitation, with some conservative members calling Mr. Snowden a scourge who had put national security at risk and others warning that inviting him could undermine Europe’s relations with the United States.
Mr. Snowden “has endangered lives,” said Timothy Kirkhope, a British member from the European Conservatives and Reformists Group.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/10...?from=homepage
conservatives everywhere are the same!
The NSA's impact on US datacenter hosting
In a survey commissioned by Canadian-based hosting provider Peer 1 of potential Canadian and UK datacenter customers 25 percent of the respondents indicated that they were planning on moving their data outside the US and hopefully out of the reach of the NSA.
The independent survey of 300 datacenter customers also indicated that their overall trust in hosting providers was negatively impacted by the entire NSA debacle, with more than half also distrusting the public cloud in general. This actually contrasts oddly with the 81 percent who made a point of wanting to know exactly where their data was being stored, a concept that undermines the concept of cloud-based storage to a certain degree.
http://www.zdnet.com/the-nsas-impact...e539&ttag=e539
And then there's the Cisco type US vendors having trouble selling their back-doored hardwared overseas. But, we're safe, like a Boston Marathon, from the ragheads!
Sen. Schumer Is Completely Wrong; Snowden Would Be Barred From Arguing His Case At Trial
It seems every week a new member of Congress goes on a Sunday talk show and incorrectly states that if Edward Snowden came back to the United States to stand trial, he would be able to tell his side of the story to a jury and argue he is a whistleblower. This is factually not true, and it's time for members of the media to start pushing back at those who suggest it is.
This week it was Senator Chuck Schumer on ABC's "This Week." Here's what Schumer said, according to the New York Times:
Mr. Schumer said...[Snowden] should return to stand trial and face the consequences of his actions. Such a trial, the senator said, could be enlightening for the country.
...
He said it was unclear how much the broad metadata gleaned by the National Security Agency had helped the fight against terrorists; how much damage Mr. Snowden had, in fact, done to intelligence efforts; and precisely how the data were used.
“All of this could come out in a trial; it would be beneficial for the country to have the discussion,” Mr. Schumer said. “So, running away, being helped by Russia and China, is not in the tradition of a true civil disobedience prac ioner.”
In reality, none of that information would be heard by a jury, if prior Espionage Act cases against leakers are any guide. Judges have ruled evidence of showing intent to inform the public, benefits of the leaks, and lack of damage to national security is inadmissible.
We made this point just two weeks ago, but it seems worth repeating since it seems as though members of Congress opining on Snowden's legal options do not know how the law works. Here are how four of the most recent Espionage Act leak cases have turned out:
- John Kiriakou, the former CIA officer who was the first to go on-the-record with the media about waterboarding, pled guilty in his Espionage Act case last year partially because a judge ruled he couldn’t tell the jury about his lack of intent to harm the United States.
- In the ongoing leak trial of former State Department official Stephen Kim, the judge recently ruled that the prosecution “need not show that the information he allegedly leaked could damage U.S. national security or benefit a foreign power, even potentially.” (emphasis added)
- In the Espionage Act case against NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake (which later fell apart), the government filed two separate motions to make sure the words "whistleblowing" or "overclassification" would never be uttered at trial.
- In Chelsea Manning's trial this past summer, Manning's defense wanted to argue she intended to inform the public, that the military was afflicted with a deep and unnecessary addiction to overclassification, and that the government’s own internal assessments showed she caused no real damage to U.S. interests. All this information was ruled inadmissible until sentencing. Manning was sentenced to thirty-five years in jail—longer than most actual spies under the Espionage Act.
At this point, it's time for the media to start pushing back on government officials suggesting Snowden should tell his story to a jury, when caselaw says he would be barred from doing so. The New York Times is aware of this fact, as they mentioned it in another article published Sunday about the chances of Snowden receiving clemency. But in their story about Schumer's comments, they let his false statement go uncorrected.
It's also time for Congress to start debating the merits of using the Espionage Act on the sources of journalists. If Sen. Schumer thinks that Snowden should be able to tell all of the above information to a jury, we look forward to his amicus brief in a potential Snowden trial arguing that a whistleblower defense should be admissible. In the mean time, he and other members of Congress concerned about whistleblowers getting a fair trial should push for reform or repeal of the Espionage Act.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...se-trial.shtml
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
