Charlie Pierce has a question for the "Snowden-is-a-traitor" faction.

[bullwinkle428]

"So Brian Williams neither got Edward Snowden to confess to selling Michael Hayden's hat-size to the People's Liberation Army, nor did he carry Snowden around Red Square in adulation. So everybody's opinions get to be reinforced and, I guess, Glenn Greenwald continues to be left off Michael Kinsley's Christmas card list.

(If there's a more overrated person in American journalism than Michael Kinsley, I do not know who it is. His mandate is, apparently, Not To Be Bothered by anything, and explaining to you witless proles that there never is anything to worry about. The man might as well live on the moon.)

Meanwhile, as Dan Froomkin points out, and as more and more people realize, the NSA has spent 13 years ignoring the laws, ignoring its mandate, and ignoring any reforms that it agreed to itself. (This is also a theme in the terrific Frontline series, The United States Of Secrets.) It is a messianic, lawless enterprise at this point, and enabling it has developed within the government a contempt for the rule of law and for constitutional safeguards that may well be permanent. Judges kowtow to it. Journalists clear their throats sonorously and argue for prior restraint because they are very responsible people and because Glenn Greenwald is a jerk. Or something. I do have a question for the Snowden-Is-A-Traitor crowd. What happens to the people who received the material he purloined? I don't mean Greenwald, either. Should Bart Gellman go to jail? Marty Baron? Bill Keller? All the people at the upper echelons of the Guardian? Where are John Kerry's denunciations of them? Please let us know how far you're willing to go as hard-eyed realists who knew this was going on all along because that's what Great Nations Do. And do let me know when that Snowden-inspired war between Indonesia and Australia starts."

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/

[Maedhros]

1. The Anti-Snowden/Anti-Greenwald cabal of posters is intent on suppressing the information

Snowden released, and on suppressing discussion of that information.

In doing so, they are revealing themselves as an Anti-Democracy cabal as well. Snowden revealed, with hard corroborating evidence, a system of secret policies and secret laws, enacted in secret, conducted in secret and overseen only by secret courts in secret proceedings. Their justification for supporting this system is that our political, military and intelligence leaders must be trusted because they have access to information we don't. Democracy cannot survive under such a system:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

[L0oniX]

10. I don't think they'd care if there were inner bowl NSA cams in their toilets.

Their response to it may be "the NSA already knows I shit ...so what".

[kelliekat44]

23. As far as I can tell, they are not citizens of the US. Snowden betrayed his country...what others

did with the info is another matter. I just do not support the way Snowden went about this even though I do not support what NSA was doing either.

[Maedhros]

24. Snowden and Greenwald are both U.S. citizens.

Both are working to improve the sorry state of their nation.

[Enthusiast]

41. +1 a whole fucking bunch.

[treestar]

2. If they violated a law

then why shouldn't they face it too? If they didn't, why should anything happen?

[msanthrope]

8. I'm at a loss...what law does Pierce think was violated? nt

[rhett o rick]

9. But of course those that violate the law must be held accountable. Well at least for whistle-blowers

and protestors but not the NSA or major corporations. Right? Not the big bullies just those that dare to challenge them.

I am surprised that Democrats, especially those that claim to be politically liberal would side with those that are destroying our Democracy and economy, and show such hatred for those fighting for freedom and liberty. During the Revolutionary War they were called Loyalists.

[JoeyT]

16. I believe you're neglecting something.

Now don't you feel silly.

[Enthusiast]

42. +1 a whole fucking bunch.

[BrotherIvan]

25. I've got a very long list of people who need to come first in "facing the music"

War Criminals
Torturers
War Profiteers
Companies that cause environmental damage
Bankers that steal people's homes and savings and brag about it
Human Traffickers
&c.

These people have most definitely broken the law and and have without a shadow of a doubt hurt people. Killed people. Ruined our water, land and oceans all for greed. Stolen people's homes, retirements and pensions. Those people deserve to face the music and should be punished for their crimes. I have seen no proof that any of Snowden's revelations have lead to the death of anyone, let alone thousands.

Those who demand that Snowden face the same treatment as Bradley Manning are out for nothing but blood. Some strange idea that if Snowden is thrown into some dingy cell, or better yet, hanged for treason, somehow Obama will be vindicated. Alas, they have yet to show how what Snowden did has harmed the country and deserves such a fate. Where is the proof? Other than taking the word of the NSA that he "revealed secrets". The same crowd then defends the NSA for spying on heads of state and just about everyone by saying, "well everyone knows they do it." Yes, now Snowden has given proof of how far and how wide the net is.

I'm so shocked, I thought that most Democrats were not for a massive MIC, constant war, and over half of our budget going to the Pentagon. But I guess the wires got crossed somewhere and now there is this strange rush to protect the system. Strange days indeed.

[djean111]

28. Snowden cannot make huge campaign contributions, silly. THAT's the difference.

[riderinthestorm]

3. +10000 nt

[Egnever]

4. Stupid question

Of course they shouldn't.

I will give this guy credit though for coming close to realizing snowden stole classified documents.

Snowden is a traitor. Greenwald is an ambulance chaser. One is illegal the other is just slimy.

[rhett o rick]

11. And you fully support the NSA/CIA/FBI authoritarian leadership. Whistle-blowers upset

your denial bubble, dont they. Freedom and liberty arent really what they are hyped up to be, are they. Rhetorical questions. Just surprised that a so-called liberal would side with the oligarchs.

[Egnever]

14. yup

You will excuse me if I don't take your rambling seriously. I know how you like to go with whatever FDL tells you to think.

[stonecutter357]

18. .

[BrotherIvan]

26. Authoritarians usually call them "firebaggers"

And I always laugh at authoritarians.

[jmowreader]

5. Turns out improper RECEIPT of classified information is not illegal

The old "I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you" joke isn't true, but if they can prove any of those people worked with Snowden to get the data out of the NSA, conspiracy can be charged.

[msanthrope]

6. What law have they violated? Absent collusion to steal (i.e. directing or participating

in the theft) what would they be accused of?


Merely publishing stolen documents is no offense.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

13. it is if they're classified. .. nt

[msanthrope]

22. Kindly cite the statute you think would endanger a publisher of classified docs...and

cite a prosecution.

Not the stealer...the publisher.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

31. for your reading pleasure :

18 U.S.C. Section 793

Prohibits the gathering, transmitting, or receipt of defense information with the intent or reason to believe the information
will be used against the United States or to the benefit of a foreign nation. Violators are subject to a fine or up to 10 years’ imprisonment, or both.

Would you like me to put the whole thing here or can you look it up?

sP

[msanthrope]

37. Um...no. Under which subsections would a journalist in receipt be prosecuted?

Specifically....can you point to a single prosecution or legal opinion that would back your claim that a third-party receipt to a journalist not only HAS happened, but would happen?

To make it easier for you, I'd focus on subsections c and e.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

43. i found the code

... prosecution? tougher. the code clearly says 'any person' so if they wanted to prosecute i would say they could.

thanks for continuing to be you...

sP

[msanthrope]

44. Well...you've proved my point. In the 100 years since the EA was passed, not a

single journalist has been prosecuted under it. And why would they be?

Take a look at the code you gave.....tell me which journalist has done what specific act that would lead to prosecution.

[marmar]

7. K&R

^ Here they come.

[rhett o rick]

12. Disparaging Snowden, Greenwald, and OWS is all they got. They wont touch fracking or the XL Pipelin

or other important issue.

[bvar22]

15. Pierce is right on.

The early American Revolutionaries were called "traitors".
They were called "cowards" for not Facing their Crimes,
or letting the Crown Soldiers shoot them down.
They ran away to keep on fighting.
I don't call them cowards for that.
I call them Pretty Damn Smart.

Snowden has shown that he is pretty damn smart too.
He would be an idiot to come here and expect to be treated fairly by our government.

[Fuddnik]

17. Actually, there are two more overrated journalists than Kinsley.

I give you Thomas Friedman and David Brooks.

But, only Kinsley pretends to be a liberal.

[Demeter]

21. There's a whole string of them at NYT

That strange guy Douthat, Nicholas Kristof, Charles Blow....I think they are 2nd string. Then my local fishwrap has some Teabagger wannabes.

[stevenleser]

20. Pierce is usually good or at least interesting but he really missed it on this one.

Only the person who made the unauthorized transfer of classified info is criminally liable. It's not even an interesting question, it's straightforward. The only exception is if someone put them up to doing so which is a question hanging over Greenwald's head right now.

But these other folks? Not an interesting posit at all. Its obvious.

[Thinkingabout]

27. K & R

Many seem to think Snowden should be pardoned because others may have committed crimes. The people who received the information from Snowden may not have committed the same crime unless something as participating in planning the crime.

[djean111]

29. Snowden would not be an issue at all, if Obama were not president.

The entirety of Snowden's actions are seen by some to merely be an attack on Obama. The entirety. What the NSA is doing is not relevant.. Just the quite weird stance that all of what Snowden did was about Obama.

Everything is viewed through that narrow lens or filter.

[stevenleser]

30. Sorry, that doesn't work

My objection back in 2006-2007 was that we were warrant less wiretapping, and my demand was that we go back to using FISA.

We're now back to using FISA.

I've been consistent on NSA Surveillance all along across administrations. I've also explained multiple time why my position has the added bonus of being Constitutional and takes into account appellate decisions and the history of why we are where we are with Presidential powers on the subject, things that I don't think you or those who agree with you, have a grasp of at all.

[djean111]

32. First, you do not represent everyone who has an issue with Snowden.

Second, I have issues with FISA. This oh, it is legal stuff merely obscures the wrongness of what the NSA is doing.

It is legal for huge corporations to not pay taxes, too - so are you okay with that?
Legal for huge corporations to literally buy elections now - are you okay with that?

[stevenleser]

34. Of course you have issues with FISA, You havent done the research. And how do you know my

views aren't representative of folks who have issues with Snowden and Greenwald?

You clearly have no idea why FISA was passed and what the issues are surrounding Presidential powers with regard to national security surveillance. That's OK, I've done all the heavy lifting for you.

http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2013/06/transcript-of-nsa-surveillance-portion.html

[djean111]

36. Looks to me like all FISA does now is okay such broad warrants as to make the charge of

warrant-less wire-tapping moot.
Now, the NSA scoops up everything - everything - on the off-chance it can be used later. And - it gets used.
That thing about constructing viable alternative chains of evidence as to how an agency got evidence from NSA data comes to mind.

Hope you did not strain yourself with the heavy lifting - but your article is very heavy on why this stuff is not OBAMA'S fault, and anyway, we have always been scooping up everything, now FISA makes it legal. Plus a few educated guesses.
What Snowden revealed was not a direct strike at Obama - Obama merely happened to be president when Snowden did his thing.
I have accepted that Obama is merely a temporary player in this thing. Hands tied, etc.
It is how FISA is used that I object to. Collecting everything, and then getting what seems to be a rubber-stamped FISA okay to look at it is not civil liberty. That's what bothers the ACLU.

[stevenleser]

38. The evidence is clear on this and it is quite exculpatory as far as Obama is concerned.

You will note that Greenwald has never tried to address this because it does not go along with his intended narrative.

If the history and judicial review of Presidential powers with respect to surveillance was in favor of the points Greenwald was trying to push, you could bet they would have appeared in articles he has written.

And you cannot say he doesn't know better. He was an attorney. He's fully capable of checking out appellate decisions on this and he knows full well why FISA was created. I am sure he has and has willfully made the decision not to inform his readers of this aspect of the situation.

[djean111]

39. Again, this is bigger than Obama. Obama is a bit player, and is temporary.

Making this all about Obama, and then spending time defending him is pointless.
Unless one only really cares about Obama.

[stevenleser]

40. You mentioned Obama, I responded to your point about Obama. And no...

... in some ways, its not bigger than Obama because he is POTUS and its his policies that are at issue and Greenwald has completely misrepresented what is going on here because he hates Obama.

So Obama is actually a big part of what IS going on here.

[m-lekktor]

33. that's it exactly though they will NEVER admit to it.

nobody is fooled.

[stevenleser]

35. Most people havent written articles so they can't prove you wrong. But I have...

As I said, my objection to Bush era surveillance was warrantless wiretapping and not using FISA...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_071028_republicans_turning_.htm