They are all violating an NDA, and should be hammered unmercifully.

It might say just during time in Theater and they are all discharged long time ago. Snowden was still in his job. All of this is going to make quite a movie and yes one will be made for sure.

Even after a job is done, you can not speak of classified material until it is declassified.

I think everyone (in general) needs to just take a breath and let this story settle down and see what happens. The thing that is bad is, we could be seeing discussions on this for a year before they finish up whatever decisions they have to make about the case.

personal knowledge of Bergdahl. Only if they were speaking of something learned from classified documents.

a pretty graphic for their fans who think it sounds good and will defend it until the end.

The Snowden Case: A Cut-and-Dried Case of Violating a Non-Disclosure Agreement

snip//

"I'm not sure what motivates a guy like Edward Snowden to do intelligence-gathering in the first place, since he seems to have a problem with U.S. intelligence-gathering both foreign and domestic, but whatever his motivations to listen in on people in the first place, he did knowingly sign an agreement and then, like Sterling, "violated his oath to protect classified information."

Snowden knew the potential consequences for that choice, including the possibility of facing criminal charges, and he's now fleeing the consequences of that choice."

Daniel Ellsberg bless his heart likes to paint as pretty a picture as possible for ES but ends up not doing him any favors..

thanks for reality, pnwmom

dkos

its the fine print that trips them up.

...he took off his blinders.



- You should try it! It won't hurt! Promise!

K&R

protected him from being charged but it didn't.

If all they had access to was information that everyone has already access to, what kind of whistleblowing would that be?

Brian Williams pressed him during the NBC interview and he could not name one thing.

This entire brouhaha is based on Snowden wanting to be important. His opinion on what the NSA should be doing apparently trumps everyone else's.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

The rest of the country is not interested in word plays or in Snowden, for that matter. The truth is obvious at this point, and no sophistic arguments can sweep it back under the carpet.

We have an enormous judicial infrastructure in place to interpret our Constitution. Snowden decided on his own that he could subvert all that. It really hasn't worked out for him so far.

But hey, we still have August to look forward to. I hear the fireworks in Brazil will be gorgeous.


[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

So what. This is hardly news. He broke a non-disclosure agreement with a criminal organization. People aren't buying this angle. Wrong is wrong and people plainly see it. There is no cloaking it. We used to call this stuff evil. Nitpicking won't win over any converts.

reasons why disclosure is illegal to the wrong people, wiretapping with a warrant is not illegal. Snowden will loose or he will remain out of the US. He is not wise enough to follow instructions.

When evil becomes legal then it needs to be confronted. History shows us that if we appease then it becomes much harder to deal with later. And having probable cause is different than going on a fishing expedition.

The process of confrontation has begun with warrants issued and charges has been made.

The federal government?

Correct me if I'm wrong but it was either the NSA, CIA or the republican law firm contractor Booze, Allen. He worked for all three. Either way he did the conscious thing. Many things that are legal or borderline evil. Activists try to change things.

The truth is NOT obvious and it could even be complicated. I have yet to hear anyone give a reasoned argument in favor of him taking over 1 million files from his last job that he took with the goal of getting more to leak.

The ONLY argument I hear is that there should be NOTHING kept secret period. This might be to the libertarian side of Ron and Rand Paul! It is not the law and not where the majority of the country is.

7. That number refers to inadvertent database query results. It could have even been a single query that returned that number of names. And the NSA reported it. Hardly sounds criminal when the 'criminals' volunteer the information.

10. Data is routinely destroyed. For the metadata, I believe it's every 5 years. If the NSA tried to hide something, I think the court system can handle it.

27. Of course NSA tries to get past encryption. Do you really think drug and human traffickers don't try to hide what they do?

33. So end the metadata collection. It's no skin off my nose.

It's funny, isn't it, how Snowden has absolutely no opinion about any of this? His sole purpose seems to be to stir things up. That seems to have backfired for him.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

You are the one who brought up that activity had to be illegal to be whistleblowing. Which is not true.

"A whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower) is a person who exposes misconduct, alleged dishonest or illegal activity occurring in an organization. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health and safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues)."

violations.

The user would likely not even know the source of the results. He/she would see a list of names and other data, that's all.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

And I'm sure the datasets change all the time to keep up with changing circumstances.

The NSA has the world's largest collection of electronic data. When they make a mistake, it can be a doozy!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

obtained would not leave the confines of the NSA.

... he uncovering outside of scope!?

eom

eom

Sleepless or was it a...strategic timing?

Strange comment.

Congress passed the Un-Patriot Act both as a result of sincere belief we needed to do something in light of the massive failure of the government to prevent 9/11 and a sense of public pressure to be seen as doing something.

Since then no member of Congress that has had access to confidential information about the secret government's activities have been able to speak about them publicly in Congress or with the public at large. They remained a totally secret government unto themselves.

When were we going to have a public debate about what we want our government doing in our names? It is one thing to say we send representatives to Congress but when they are unable to debate these matters openly and ensure the support of the American public we have a totally secret government that is only accountable to themselves.

I have said this many time. I firmly believe that even if Congress eliminated the NSA and the myriad of other clandestine agencies, removed them from the budget, these agencies would continue as if nothing happened. Nothing would change. They are a government unto themselves. They will have funding. They will continue their spying and whatever else it is they do.

I thank Edward Snowden for his brave service to this nation.......

have your name and your reported earnings, would you like for a worker in the Social Security to gather your information and deliver it to anyone they please?

Every military member and every cabinet appointee takes an oath to the Constitution.

And no where in the Constitution does it allow for this kind of NSA spying. But we will ignore that oath.

The Constitution does not apply to non-US persons. For example, Angela Merkel has no Constitutional rights as long as she's outside the US. All but one program that Snowden leaked is gathering information on non-US persons, so all of those are allowed by the Constitution.

The one US persons program? The phone metadata program. It's comfortably legal under an overly-broad 1979 SCOTUS decision. That decision made phone metadata not private, thus allowing the NSA to collect it.

So yes, the Constitution does allow for this kind of NSA spying.

However, that doesn't get nearly as many page views, so a lot of people covering this have heavily implied that the "non-US persons spying" was against US persons. The actual leaked documents show that this is not true.

It applies to everyone in the US, citizen or Non-citizen it does not use the word citizen. It refers to persons.

If Angela Merkel were in the US, she would be protected by the Constitution as well because she is a person.

The NSA gathers ALL our data. Not just non-US citizens. You need to read up on what the NSA has done.

No the Constitution does NOT allow for this type of spying.

Amendment 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.

Says nothing about citizens of non-US persons vs US persons. Where are all the Warrants issued supported by Oath and describing the Place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized? Taking my e-mails and spying on everything I say on line or by phone is seizing my information.

You really need to read up on what the NSA has been doing.

The term "US person" is not the same thing as US citizen. US person means "person subject to US law". So that's US citizens, and non-citizens in US territory or US custody.

If they are not a US citizen, and they are not in US territory, and are not being held by the US government, then the Constitution does not apply. They are a non-US person.

rule it unconstitutional? It was revised under Obama.

It would seem that the majority of legislators at two different times, two Presidents and the Supreme Court all disagree with you.

important.

The search is NOT of your home or your person.

In addition, since the 2008 FISA passed, searching the data base of calls itself required a FISA court approval. Note that the SC has not found the current law illegal.

For both those reasons, this is not a clear violation of the 4Th amendment. If the country thought it was, Congress could pass a law saying it was.

phone call records for many years before FISA was enacted. FISC was a very fast source to obtain warrants.

Wouldn't gathering the phone detail be closer to the DAs getting subpoenas to get that info from the phone companies? (The difference is the data base is there and it likely is easier and faster to get the records once a FISA request is made.)

Non disclossure agreement



I have signed one of those for every job I have ever had.

Lets see, how many days of jail can you get by breaking one?

ZERO

They could take him to civil court I guess. Not that he would give a shit.

Obviously unless there is a trial, no one is sentenced to jail. It is not a civil court issue.

Breaking a non-disclosure agreement is not a criminal offense. Not even close.

agencies such as NSA and many other jobs where sensitive information is accessed as in the provider companies, yep, it is a fine and or prison time.

Contract law is contract law. Falls under civil. If there are other non contract laws that have been broken, that is another issue. You will do ZERO, I repeat ZERO jail time for breaking a contract.

serving time in prison and does not want to return to the US to face the charges?

way to try to convolute things.

If you are against spying why would you want employees of banks, credit card companies, or service providers to give your personal information to others? Would you want your attorney to give information you may have discussed?

difference in the one Snowden is involved in, check out his "reasons" for not returning to the US, he knew his actions was going to have consequences. Some may be in very important positions and therefore there are consequences.

I do not understand that post at all, it is coming across as gibberish to me.

The one Snowden had and violated has resulted in charges of espionage. If this sounds like gibberish to you I can not help you to understand.

read the non disclosure and it said there will be consequences would you change your mind?

It does not matter. It is contract law, ie civil law not criminal law.

You wouldn't be bound by an NDA so what applicable law would apply?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

I do not know which specific law could be used, people in this thread are saying espionage law. Maybe that is the one.

All I know is that an NDA is a contract between you and whatever entity the NDA is with. It is contract law. Breaching the contract falls under civil law, not criminal law. I know because I have had to sign many NDAs in my life for various jobs.

Breaking an NDA is a CIVIL matter. It has nothing to do with the Espionage Act.

4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from
any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or termination of my employment or other relationships with the
Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized
disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the
provisions of sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, title 18, United States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b}, title 50,
United States Code; and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.] I reognize that nothing in this Agreement
constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

The law you site is not dependent on a signed contract. The non-disclosure agreement has NOTHING to do with the regulations you cite other than telling the person that a law exists.

I salute anyone with the courage to expose government crimes.

And the guys the "clearance process" is supposed to weed out are precisely the guys who will sign agreements and not keep them. So what does it mean to say that the noisiest leaker ever lied when he signed on the dotted line? It means the clearance process failed, as it is bound to do from time to time. And when you are operating a system of the size and scope of the NSA, that means it's going to happen with some regularity, as we can see. Sometimes, smaller is better. Sometimes a lot smaller is a lot better.

And, no, they are not technically "secrecy oaths," although oaths are bullshit, too. Who cares?

As is the Espionage Act, by the way.

You should be much more concerned that use of the Espionage Act is being threatened against Snowden then by anything Snowden did.

A law he obviously broke?

Let's pretend Snowden did not flee the US. Instead, he released the documents to the NY Times. The Espionage Act would not apply. It requires giving the secrets to another country, or receiving compensation from another country for the secrets.

Instead, he fled. And he's received compensation from Russia in return for his leaks. Which makes his case a very clear-cut violation of the Espionage Act.

Btw, specifically what program did Snowden leak that was illegal? Keep in mind all but one program was against non-US persons outside the US, so the Constitution does not apply in those cases.

The one program that did collect on US persons, the phone metadata program, fits comfortably under an overly-broad 1979 SOCTUS decision that made phone metadata not private.

IOW, if you want to fix it, you need Congress to fix it. They didn't break any laws, so we need new laws.

ignoring the law in, say, Iran-Contra was bad. Right?

Perhaps we shouldn't strive for selective enforcement of laws.

If it is okay with you to do this then just go ahead and post this for public view and use.

Those are not my government.

Never said they weren't legally actionable.

Was it merely a private Holocaust when it was just the phone company that retained them? Your post is despicable.

When their own government violates standing laws, our commits amoral acts.

If you would prefer : Let's say, instead, that a German soldier was collecting the art and other objects from the victims ... clearly illegal acts that still reverberate today as art pieces are slowly repatriated to their rightful owners ...

The Nuremberg defense was a loser then, and it is still a loser now ...

Let's not get lost in the godwin nonsense ...

Even your current example is still FAR FAR more than the government - like the phone company itself - having my phone records. In fact, imagine that rather than confiscating the art, they merely took a picture and set up a database - that might be closer.

It is not an AMORAL act for the government to collect phone records which incidentally belong to the phone company that created them.

Why are you using words that mean far worse things than actually happened? Seriously, you invoked the Holocaust and used the word "amoral", what words are left to you when things that are real atrocities are spoken of?

Why not argue that laws needed to be changed to control who can collect what information on people and how they can use it. I would bet that the 3 credit scoring companies have at least as much information on you -- and they sell it for others to use for things like marketing to you. You KNOW google knows what you searched. Etc. Consider what you put on line - including in places where you use your real name. Technology has created the ability to easily collect and process information on an individual person level. It will happen unless there are laws against it. This will become a bigger problem over time.

bullshit.

Despicable is throwing out ludicrous arguments to try to defend the construction of a surveillance state in the United States of America, that surpasses the capabilities of any totalitarian state in history.

Spare us the faux hyperventilation. The only thing here that is despicable is the incessant Third Way propaganda from the same small group, trying to justify abuse of power and the trashing of the Constitution of the United States of America with excuses that didn't cut it at Nuremberg and don't cut it in any situation with anyone whose moral compass has developed past Kohlberg's Stage Four.

Not to mention, the post I responded to shows the degree of hysteria that some have reached that the poster actually equated the Holocaust to the collection of phone records??? You mentioning Nuremberg are obliquely doing the same thing.

Not to mention, there were and are countries with FAR more of a surveillance state than the US -- including the one Snowden is sitting in!

Same old Third Way, corporate police state garbage.

Keep deliberately missing the point. Whistleblowers violate rules to expose abuse of power. Your arguing legalities here has the very same weight as the "I was only following orders" excuses at Nuremberg.

This is the dumbest thread I have ever seen at DU. Its only positive purpose, as far as I can see, is to expose for all of us how low the Third Way arguments go in their legalistic drivel and emotional smear rhetoric to defend persecuting a whistleblower who exposed mass criminal surveillance and abuse of power by our government against its own citizens and Constitution.

All it is saying is that it is NOT true that Snowden never committed to not disclosing secrets. The simple fact is that - he did -- and he released secrets. It would seem to me that these are two facts that can be agreed to by everyone.

Where there should be a debate is on things like:

1) Were the leaks to the good of the country? Note - it is possible to argue different things for different types of information leaked.

2) Should the law be changed? There are some bills that are trying to do that - what are they? Do they satisfy your needs? Should this be brought to the Supreme Court?

3) Are there any grounds that could justify a pardon or more likely, given even people like Bernie Sanders have said they don't think he should be pardoned, a plea deal for Snowden so he could return? Is this something to actually start a grassroots effort on? Have people like Holder (or people reporting to him) been asked? Have Snowden's lawyers worked with them or is this something that if done, is best done privately?

Your sensitivity to this thread is fascinating. Why not just concede - Snowden leaked secrets that he signed he would not compromise? That is ALL that this thread accuses him of - yet you speak of smearing. How is this smearing Snowden?

Your attempt to defend THIS thread with references to a hypothetical thread is an interesting rhetorical tactic. However, we can all read THIS thread and the arguments within, which follow the typical Third Way playbook of (1) attempting to smear Snowden as a lawbreaker...as though breaking laws were not often a necessary part of principled whistleblowing... and (2) directing faux outrage and bullshit "false equivalence" accusations against anyone who points out that lame rhetorical tactic...say, by referencing other egregious situations in history in which government abuse of power was made "legal."

No, we don't need "debate" about whether it's lawful or right for the government of the United States of America to engage in mass surveillance of its own citizens. And we certainly don't need "debate" about whether it was a good thing for the abuses to be made known to us. Arguing over whether Snowden broke a law is a DIVERSION. More than that, it is a deliberate diversion.

We need defense of the Constitution and of the American people. We need the dismantling of the surveillance state that never should have happened here. And dismantling of the propaganda machine would be nice, too.

and imply that saying that Snowden broke the law -- without adding a motivation or explanation --- is smearing, it is clear you are not operating in the real world.

Not to mention, if you think arguing over " whether Snowden broke a law is a diversion", stop doing so. He very likely did break the law, though he has yet to be found guilty of doing so.

As to debating what is needed and what are abuses, obviously the US does -- unless you agree with things as they are.

By the way, I suspect that I am not alone in being annoyed at the third way verbiage thrown at anyone who is not a libertarian on this issue. I am a liberal - as I have been for at least 50 years. The fact is that Bernie Sanders, certainly not third way, also nixed Snowden getting a pardon. (Not a surprise to me - one of the best moments at a great Sanders town Hall in Burlington - was when a Ron Paul guy spoke of their values being similar - Sanders was incredible in listing why they had little in common - starting with things like wanting to help people who have less. ) The political spectrum is multi-dimensional and not everyone thinks that liberal or progressive are a fit with Libertarian.

When you then cite "Constitution" as if there is one sacrosanct interpretation of it on this issue - even though the Supreme Court, Congress, and the President - a Constitutional Law professor disagree with you - it is not any more impressive than when the right does the same thing.

Just as it is unrealistic to expect everyone here to be impressed with President Obama, or any other Democrat, it is unrealistic to expect everyone to be impressed with Snowden. I resent the constant intimidation of anyone here who does not worship at his feet. I also resent the smearing of any Democrat who has suggested that Snowden is not a hero.

Last edited Mon Jun 9, 2014, 04:02 PM - Edit history (3)

Ah, a perfect summary of the quality of this exchange:

"third way verbiage thrown at anyone who is not a libertarian on this issue..."

There it is again: that familiar, manipulative talking point that deliberately attempts to confuse civil libertarian positions with sympathy for the Libertarian Party.

Actually, MOST Americans cherish our Bill of Rights, our civil liberties. They are not a partisan issue, the best efforts of NSA talking points notwithstanding. I wish I'd kept a record of all the threads so far from the same, small group here that attempt, bizarrely and creepily, to suggest that opposition to a mass surveillance machine is a proprietary issue of the Libertarian Party.

You have now moved from trying to argue diversionary irrelevancy about whether Snowden broke a rule (Remember: Whistleblowers DO break rules to expose greater abuses!) - to attempting to label anyone who does not cooperate with your attempted diversion as a member of the Libertarian Party.

Newsflash: Standing in defense of civil liberties, being a civil libertarian, is NOT the same as belonging to the Libertarian Party. The important issue here remains the abuses of power that Snowden revealed: the mass surveillance by the US government of its own people. If you value the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, you are a civil libertarian. It's that simple.

Diversion, manipulation, and smear are what the NSA has to defend itself, and the talking points reflecting these are repeated endlessly. Divert by arguing about whether Snowden broke a rule. Manipulate by muddying the definition of "libertarian." Smear by association of the manipulated word with the Party. I can't think of a more illustrative place to end this sadly predictable exchange.

People can read what I wrote. You are the one name calling anyone who disagrees with you on Snowden. Note that your third way nonsense is a much broader label than my use of libertarian (note small l - where I do-- just like you -- capitalize political parties) is bounded by "ON THIS ISSUE". Note further I did not call anyone anything. I labeled a position on a specific issue.

You have labeled anyone who thinks Snowden should not be given medals and a ticker tape parade, "third way".

Very dumb thread.

The rape of a continent , the theft, torture, murder and abuse of millions are NOT the same as the government maybe possibly peeking at my digital activities.

The equivalency is not the heinous actions themselves, but the claim for relief for illegal actions based on the Nuremburg Defense, 'my government made me do it'

You can make this about comparing the result of the actions, themselves, but you and I know that was not the intent of the comparison ...

But you didn't. As written, it minimized the Holocaust via a false equivalence.

Your more precise statement here is less revolting.

And it would not have been hidden.

The poster's later responses that were more precise have not been thus dealt with.

in a thread that most are probably avoiding in the first place, given the absurd irrelevancy of the information trumpeted in its title.

The point being made was clear *and* important. It exposed the diversionary nature of the entire thread. The jury hide was absurd.

Snowden exposed mass abuse of power by the US government against its own citizens. Whistleblowers break rules in order to expose government abuse of power.

Whether he broke a rule or not is irrelevant, except as predictable diversionary rhetoric.

"Addressing" meaning on stage, in boardrooms, meetings, seminars, classes, and online: if the audience doesn't get it, it's the presenter's fault. If they don't laugh at the joke, dance to the song, pass the test, or grok what you are saying, it is on you, the deliverer of the content.

It's cheap and easy to blame the audience, but that rarely leads to growth for the message bearer. Some of my best learning experiences have been the worst gigs: because I had to subject myself to ruthless deconstruction so as to build the skills I should have already had.

In this case, the poster first pissed some people off via imprecise phrasing; then after being called on it, rephrased to make their meaning clear. Everyone wins, nobody loses, because we all learn something new.

of the two. YOU are the one smearing anyone (including me on another post) who had a problem with the deleted post!

I am surprised that you would try to use that as a trump card.

The analogy was clear to anyone following the argument honestly. You don't defend unconscionable behavior by a government by arguing legalities, when that government purposely made those unconscionable acts legal.

Not hard, really.

This again is misused language. If you disagree with the law, work to change it.

As to it being hidden - that does mean a majority of this community - a community that is very biased towards Snowden, voted to hide it.

The mere fact that he signed an NDA completely reverses my entire understanding of the fact of the NSA spies on every American!

Oh wait, no it doesn't.

Why should any of us actually care about whether or not Snowden broke an NDA, as opposed to caring about all of the craptacular actions the intel community has taken against American citizens not accused of any crime in their Cold War paranoia?

He made the right choice.

Got a a call from a Congressional committee investigating the 2004 election, "inviting" me to testify. After viewing my NDA, they declined to pursue further, because to get past the NDA would have been legally troublesome and not guaranteed.

Hell yeah, NDAs have legal force.

Please post Ellsburgs quote. Thank you. The person with the other op did not respond. I have yet to see anything linking Ellsburg to the quote except for the other op.

he wouldn't have had the job otherwise. And that is how Holder will prosecute him. If he's smart he'll never return to US soil.

Bigwigs like GWB may never pay for their war crimes but someone like Snowden is a nobody. He'll be in jail faster than you can flip through a passport.

If that's what you were implying.

faster than those higher up who break much more serious crimes ... I hope that clarifies it for you.

What is the remedy, in tort, for the violation of a contractual agreement?

{Hint: The elements of a contract are: Offer, Acceptance and (?)}

in some form or another are SOP for companies these days...so, does that mean if there's criminal activiry because you signed the NDA you keep your mouth shut about it? I think not.