About this espionage thing.

[Cleita]

I grew up under the cold war and was alive and reading newspapers when Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for revealing the A-bomb secrets to the Soviet Union. They didn't go to a newspaper. They were convicted of releasing how an A-bomb was made to another government whom we had designated an enemy. This is what espionage used to be, a spy or turncoat citizen who obtained government secrets to give to another government that we don't want to have those secrets. Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden have been charged with espionage for giving classified information to journalists. I don't understand how the charges of espionage are even remotely legal here. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

[Warpy]

1. They're not. They're ASSuming Snowden

allowed the contents of his laptops to be downloaded by China, Russia, or both.

[Cleita]

6. Assuming this is not fact. Don't you have to have probable cause or some

such thing to file charges?

[Warpy]

7. Not if you're an embarrassed government bureaucrat

or pissed off corporate stiff, apparently.

[RC]

2. Those journalists in turn gave that information to the enemy, namely US, you and me.

That was the real crime. How dare the public be informed of those spying on them.

[geckosfeet]

3. Then the journalists should be charged with espionage as well.

It's an espionage conspiracy!

[RC]

15. There is not even a legitimate reason for the data base that the warrants

request the information from.

All that information was hoovered up in violation of the 4th Amendment, without probable cause. Is every citizen in the United States a suspect in a crime? It would appear so.

That is what you have to believe, if your think the wholesale gathering everyone's electronic communications into a mass data base, for later searching, is OK.
So how can the warrant itself ever be legitimate? The warrants are more of evidence of witch hunts than anything else.

Where is the warrent for the original information collected?

[geckosfeet]

38. Agreed. But they can charge anyone with anything and bogey up evidence

and no one would know any better. They have data on everyone. If they sprinkle in a few easily verifiable pieces of data into bogus espionage charges they will probably be able to get you held for trial for a year or two or more.

What happens to you in a federal maximum security prison during that time is another matter.

[jeff47]

43. Journalists still have first amendment rights

People with security clearances have to waive some of their first amendment rights to receive a clearance.

Thus Manning and Snowden can be charged. The journalists and Assange can't.

[RC]

47. Not necessarily true

Oath

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

5 U.S.C. §3331

http://archive.opm.gov/constitution_initiative/oath.asp

[jeff47]

48. Yes, actually true.

Getting a clearance requires waiving some first amendment rights. That's why journalists and other people without a clearance can't be charged.

As for trying to hide behind "domestic enemy", neither Manning nor Snowden leaked anything unconstitutional. In Snowden's case, there's court rulings explicitly declaring the NSA programs constitutional.

[RC]

49. You and I have very different views of what is and is not Constitutional.

Just because a court says something is legal does not make it constitutional. If it is not constitutional, it can not be legal.

Actually then both did. Manning on the double strikes and Snowden on the wholesale hoovering of everyone's electronic communication, without probable cause... And without any warrants to do so. The last I heard, the Constitution was still the supreme law of the land, no matter how many secret courts say otherwise, in secret or not.

[jeff47]

50. Read your first two sentences again.

And keep reading them until you realize you contradicted yourself.

Manning on the double strikes

Not US persons. They don't have Constitutional rights.

Snowden on the wholesale hoovering of everyone's electronic communication, without probable cause.

Not what Snowden actually leaked.

It's what Snowden's supporters claim he leaked, but the actual documents he leaked do not support that claim.

The last I heard, the Constitution was still the supreme law of the land, no matter how many secret courts say otherwise

Then you should probably read that Constitution again. Specifically the parts that let the courts interpret the Constitution, secret or otherwise.

[RC]

51. We are a signatory of the Geneva conventions

Double strikes are a no-no. Manning also exposed other war crimes. I believe the guilty took an oath to uphold the Constitution. How does that square with killing innocent civilians, my distant remote control, in their own country.
Snowden leaked evidence of the hoovering. What do you think the discussions on DU have been about? The deniers would make obvious violations of the Constitution as being OK because a secret court says it is.
How is that square with being a liberal? To go along with being OK with this data collection, is to be more aligned with the paranoid Right, who want to control everyone.

Article IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How does wholesale hoovering of all of our electronic communications aline with the above? No warrant was issued to collect all that information on everyone for later scrutiny. Are we all suspected of a crime?

[jeff47]

55. It's always amusing when people resort to un-named "other crimes".

It clearly shows just how good their argument is when they can't bother to list any of those those "other crimes".

How does that square with killing innocent civilians, my distant remote control, in their own country.

AUMF authorizes it under US law, and targeting "combatants" makes it legal under international law.

The fact that the missile kills others is acceptable, legally, as long as the missile was aimed at someone thought to be a "bad guy". Not exactly a nice fact, but a fact none the less.

What do you think the discussions on DU have been about?

Most of them involve people shouting about various anecdotes that have not been backed up by any facts. Such as "other crimes". Or "PRISM targeted Americans!".

The deniers would make obvious violations of the Constitution as being OK because a secret court says it is.

Again, if you have actual reverence for the Constitution, you should know what it actually says. And it says the courts get to interpret the Constitution. So yes, it is OK because a secret court says it is.

How is that square with being a liberal?

Well, back in the day liberals liked basing their opinions in reality. There seems to be a schism forming between those who still prefer reality, and those who prefer their own version of events.

To go along with being OK with this data collection, is to be more aligned with the paranoid Right, who want to control everyone.

The problem is there is no evidence of such blanket data collection actually happening. Lots of people are claiming the NSA collects everything, but Snowden's documents do not back that up.

The only blanket collection involving US persons is the metadata program. But that data belongs to the phone company, according to the SCOTUS's 1979 ruling. And that data is already sold by the phone companies to advertisers. It's extremely odd to claim that data which does not belong to you, and is already shared with third parties, is a violation of your privacy.

How does wholesale hoovering of all of our electronic communications aline with the above?

Good thing Snowden's documents don't show collection of all communications by US persons, huh?

You are going to take this into one of four directions.

1) You are going to continue to shout "you're wrong" while ignoring what's actually in my post, in favor of what you want to believe.

2) You are going to claim the NSA is "hoovering" up everything, and ignore what Snowden actually leaked. I give it a 60% chance you'll just keep asserting it is true. A 30% chance you'll claim Snowden will leak it sometime in the future. And about a 10% chance you'll claim Snowden was somehow prevented from leaking proof of the wider program.

3) You'll continue to ignore or otherwise abuse the detail of "US Person". For example, asserting that Chinese people living in China have 4th amendment rights. Or you'll mix "US Person" up with "US Citizen". Possibly with the added twist of talking as if no other nations spy on each other. Or as an even better twist, trying to tie drone strikes to Zimmerman.

4) You will stop posting in this sub-thread, but continue to make the same claims elsewhere.

[DevonRex]

4. None of the documents they signed swearing not to divulge classified information

contain exceptions for leaking to the media. None.

[Blackford]

16. That is how I recall the documents I signed

I held a Top Secret security clearance for a number of years and it would not matter who I gave information to. If they were unauthorized, it would be a felony for each count.

[Cleita]

19. Yes, but felony what?

Leaking? Or, espionage? Different felonies carry different sentences.

[Blackford]

26. Espionage.

Giving Aid to the Enemy is another charge, but carries a higher standard, such as with Manning. They've proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Manning gave aid to the enemy by demonstrating bin Laden obtained information from Wikileaks. The same may not hold true for such a charge with Snowden, however.

And had Nixon's administration not performed so many illegal acts in the pursuit of charges against Ellsberg, Ellsberg would have done hard time for the same things. It was the inept handling of the matter that insured Ellsberg would serve no time, not some high milikely nded judgement about violating the law being okay if intentions are somehow good.

The ends do not justify the means in these cases, especially now when there are clear avenues to blow the whistle. OF course, one cannot simply blow the whistle because one believes the policy to be bad when the policy itself is not illegal, as was the case with Snowden and Manning.

[Cleita]

27. I'm sorry but to charge him with espionage is a mockery of our justice system that seems to have

gone back to the nineteenth century. Back then a starving man could be thrown in prison as a felon thief for stealing a loaf of bread.

[Blackford]

30. I have no problem with you feeling that way.

I do, however, disagree with you.

I was 19 years old when I served with a Top Secret security clearance and I knew and understood the consequences of revealing classified information. I would not have breathed a word of what I knew to my own mother, let alone a journalist.

You gain a different perspective when you are in a position to guard your nation's secrets.

[Cleita]

33. I have a problem that anyone, even with a Top Secret clearance, could condone any government

misusing the power handed to them when they give the clearance. Frankly, I believe Manning and Snowden should have contacted a member of Congress about this. But they didn't. However, their treatment subsequent to that and prior to trial has been over the top for a government that preaches equality and justice for all and and yet behaves more like a banana republic in it's administration of justice.

[snappyturtle]

52. Manning wasn't telling bin laden anything he didn't know....now the America

public...that's a different matter. TPTB can't have *that*. imho

[Blackford]

53. I disagree with your assertion

By virtue of the fact that the 700,000+ documents were classified, there is no possibility that bin Laden knew everything in every one of those classified documents, so your argument fails to hold water.

[snappyturtle]

54. Well I see no evidence that the documents, all 700,000, were of

any help to bin laden either....wouldn't we have heard? I'm going to stick with the premise that the gov't did not want the citizens knowing what the soldiers were doing in our name. We the people could be a worse enemy for tptb than bin laden.

[NightWatcher]

5. He fled to China (territory) then to Russia with classified intel

Now he's thinking about Cuba. Running to our (intel) enemies with details of our intelligence apparatus is a little more than just telling a newspaper reporter a story or two.

[phleshdef]

8. The law is broader than that.

This is the section in question that is the basis for the charges against Snowden.

Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/794

[Cleita]

12. The Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 during Jimmy Carter's administration?

That really has shuts down free speech according to the section you excerpted. If you can't give information to journalists to expose when elements in our government are going rogue, you have essentially shut down freedom of the press. I would have expected this Goebbels like move under Nixon but not Carter.

[phleshdef]

14. Thats why there are guidelines for true whistleblowing.

Snowden didn't follow them and he revealed stuff that, whether we like it or not, does not appear to be illegal under currently settled law.

[Cleita]

17. Still he should be charged with whistle blowing, not espionage IMHO.

Perhaps if he ever is put on trial a good defense could get the charges reduced, whatever lawyers do to plead to lesser charges.

[phleshdef]

20. "Whistleblowing" isn't a charge, its a defense against charges.

But Snowden isn't a whistleblower. In order to be a whistleblower, you have to expose only illegal activities. Unless the Supreme Court takes a case that somehow declares current surveillance practices in violation of the 4th amendment, then those current practices are completely legal. And even if that WERE to happen, if he did in fact reveal information to people in Russia or China or anywhere else in regard to our counter espionage activities against China, Russia, etc, then he can still be rightfully prosecuted for that.

Its the same thing with Bradley Manning. If he had taken just the war crimes evidence and went through proper whistle blower channels, then he'd have a pretty strong defense. Instead he additionally dumped a boat load of classified documents that exposed nothing illegal. That part is unarguably a crime.

[Cleita]

24. Both young men unfortunately had more heart than knowledge of how our system works.

Too bad they hadn't retained lawyers first to advise them what to do.

[Blackford]

28. That is a mistake that both will pay for.

Even if Snowden is not prosecuted, he will live under more surveillance than anything he imagined in his most fevered moments of paranoia.

Manning will spend decades behind bars, if not his entire life. No appeal will ever have a chance at succeeding in his case as his case is 100% under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ. IF he is sentenced to life imprisonment, he will die in prison without a doubt.

[RC]

18. But Bradly Manning did follow the guidelines and look what happened to him.

And people are condemning Edward Snowden for not following those same guidelines?

[phleshdef]

22. No he did not.

Not only did he not follow guidelines, but he dumped piles of classified data that exposed nothing illegal that were completely unrelated to the war crime that he wanted to expose.

[RC]

25. After the fact he knew he was in trouble.

He did try though.
We need more people like Bradly Manning and Edward Snowden.

[phleshdef]

31. "After the fact" doesn't count. Once you've broken a law, theres no unbreaking it.

And no, we don't need more people like them. We need people who are much smarter about attempted whistle blowing. We need people who will only expose illegal activities and not dump piles of classified data for no real reason, which is what Manning did. And we need people that aren't giving away information regarding our spying activities to the countries that are being spied on.

Manning should've went straight to someone like Kucinich or someone else who was in office at the time who would've been sympathetic to his cause. And he should've only released information on war crimes and nothing else.

Snowden should've likewise went to someone like Rand Paul or Alan Grayson or Bernie Sanders. He also should've done his homework and made sure that what he was exposing was technically illegal. Under current settled law, these surveillance activities are legal. I don't think they should be. But they are. And unless the Supreme Court is brought in with an opinion that says otherwise or Congress changes the law, they will remain as such. That's how it works.

[RC]

34. Slavery used to be the law too -

Are you in favor of that?

Kansas City
Minors are not allowed to purchase cap pistols, however they may buy shotguns freely.

Installation of bathtubs with four legs resembling animal paws is prohibited.

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/missouri

This should keep you busy trying to enforce them.
http://www.dumblaws.com/

[Cleita]

35. Also, being a Jew was also against the law in Germany.

It didn't matter if you had been Christian for a few generations. If you had a Jewish ancestor it was enough to legally arrest you and send you to the camps. I despair that this is what we are becoming, a nation that follows the letter of the law, no matter how immoral, and who makes laws so that their immoral actions are legal.

[phleshdef]

36. Are you in favor of reading my post?

I'll repeat "Under current settled law, these surveillance activities are legal. I don't think they should be. ".

But that doesn't matter. It has to be illegal in order for the person exposing it to be a whistle blower.

[Bonhomme Richard]

9. They are not interested in Justice. They are interested...

in shutting this whole episode down. ASAP. And they will use any means at hand.

[SomethingFishy]

10. In their defense...

They are very very busy. You think it's easy spying on 300 million people? Turning over every rock looking for the boogyman is a massive undertaking.

[Cleita]

37. Good point. They have the resources for spying on all of us. n/t

[pnwmom]

11. In China there isn't a bright line between journalists and government. n/t

[Cleita]

13. So far as I know the Chinese haven't published anything that's new information. The UK Guardian,

Wikileaks and a few bloggers like Glenn Grenwald have published classified information that other country's press have picked up like China so that's kind of a red herring on your part.

[pnwmom]

21. So what? He showed them documents. They decided what to publish about them.

That doesn't mean they published everything they saw.

[Cleita]

23. "He showed them documents."

Do you have proof?

[struggle4progress]

29. Um, the Rosenbergs et al were indicted for conspiracy to violate 50 USC 32

See:
UNITED STATES v. ROSENBERG et al.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SECOND CIRCUIT, 195 F.2d 583
January 10, 1952, Argued; February 25, 1952, Decided.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/rosenb/ROS_CT1.HTM

This section has since been repealed and replaced by 18 USC 794
See:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/31
See:
18 USC § 794 - Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/794

Snowden is currently accused of violating violations of 18 USC 641, 18 USC 793(d), and 18 USC 798(a)(3)
See:
18 USC § 641 - Public money, property or records
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641
18 USC § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
18 USC § 798 - Disclosure of classified information
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

[Cleita]

32. This has nothing to do with the reasons they were executed.

The were believed to have given A Bomb secrets to the Russians. A case was constructed for espionage against them. They were found guilty and executed. There are those to this day who do not believe they were guilty but were set up as scapegoats.

[struggle4progress]

39. You're not making any sense. You brought up the Rosenbergs, as if their case were somehow

relevant to the Snowden story

I provided a link to a court ruling in the Rosenberg case, showing they were accused of "conspiring .. to violate 50 USC 32 by combining to communicate .. information relating to the national defense of the United States, with intent and reason to believe that they would be used to the advantage of the Soviet Union"

I pointed out that 50 USC 32 has since been replaced by 18 USC 794, titled "Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government"

Then I noted Snowden isn't charged with violating 18 USC 794

[Cleita]

40. "conspiring..to violate 50 USC 32 by combining to communicate..information

relating to the national defense of the United States, with intent and reason to believe that they would be used to the advantage of the Soviet Union" is one of the many ways espionage is committed.

[struggle4progress]

41. Snowden's not charged with that

[Cleita]

42. No he isn't darling.n/t

[struggle4progress]

44. Since we're all rambling about nothing in particular, I'll point out Mata Hari was innocent

She enjoyed notoriety, and she developed a habit of lying about stuff to help puff up her sensational reputation

This had unfortunate consequences when somebody pointed the finger at her during WWI to distract attention from someone else under investigation

[Cleita]

45. Mata Hari?

[struggle4progress]

46. You aren't interested in people like the Rosenbergs, unjustly executed on false espionage charges?

Thursday, 6 December, 2001, 14:48 GMT
False testimony clinched Rosenberg spy trial
... David Greenglass, the younger brother of Ethel Rosenberg and himself a convicted spy, said he felt no remorse over his action which may have sent his sister to the electric chair ... At the trial in 1951, he said his sister typed up notes containing US nuclear secrets that were later turned over to the KGB, the Soviet intelligence service ... "I don't know who typed it, frankly, and to this day I can't remember that the typing took place. I had no memory of that at all - none whatsoever."He said he gave false testimony to protect himself and his wife, Ruth, and that he was encouraged by the prosecution to do so. "I would not sacrifice my wife and my children for my sister" ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1695240.stm