Who broke the law, Snowden or the NSA?

[CaseyJones]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/17/opinion/wiebe-snowden-amnesty/

Edward Snowden deserves amnesty and the ability to return to the United States without fear of being incarcerated for reporting crimes by people in high places in the U.S. government. Monday's ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon that the NSA's widespread collection of millions of Americans' telephone records was unconstitutional bolsters this view.

But for some, whether to give Snowden amnesty is not an easy matter to reconcile. After all, they say, he broke laws in divulging classified information.

Indeed, some say he is a traitor. But just as a member of the U.S. military is not required to follow an unlawful order, it is proper that an employee of the United States intelligence community -- NSA, CIA, DIA and others -- should report any information that concerns law-breaking by the intelligence agencies or their employees.

An NSA official's suggestion that amnesty for Snowden could possibly be put on the table was undoubtedly welcome news for Snowden, yet NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander rejected the suggestion.

But how can anyone believe that Snowden would not be deserving of amnesty? Clearly it is the government and its senior officials who committed the crime -- people who took oaths to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic and who failed to take to heart the words they swore to uphold. Indeed, Snowden did not -- nor does any government employee -- swear allegiance to the president of the United States, or even to the secretary of Defense or the director of NSA. No, he swore to uphold and defend the Constitution.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Technically both, but I don't care about Snowden's.

 

[ZENemy]

the U.S government is "breaking" the supreme law of the land.

Snowden may have broke some legal fiction or other statutes.

 

[DamianTV]

If a Law or Statute is not Constitutional, it is not Valid or Enforcable.

Did Snowden violate Federal Laws? Yes.

Were those Federal Laws Constitutional? No.

Is Snowden accountable for violation of Unconstitutional Federal Laws? No, because they are Invalid and Unconstitutional.

Thats my take. Does Judge Napolitano have anything to say specifically about Snowden breaking the law?

 

[osan]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/17/opinion/wiebe-snowden-amnesty/

Snowden broke no law. He violated statute.

Statute <> law.

Law is about right and wrong.

Statute is perforce arbitrary.

Therefore, law >> statute.

Case closed.

 

[Henry Rogue]

Who broke the law, Snowden or the NSA?

Where's the poll? i vote NSA.

 

[VBRonPaulFan]

the NSA has basically stolen all the information it has on everyone, nobody voluntarily gave that stuff over.

so the NSA is saying that Snowden is a criminal because he "stole" stuff that the NSA stole to begin with? does not compute.

 

[angelatc]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...g-back-nsa-programs-would-harm-everyone.shtml

Don't need another Snowden thread, but just wanted to point out that the editors of the WSJ think that Snowden is a sociopath, and the NSA should have even fewer restrictions.

That's the old school Repubican position, I would imagine

 

[Grubb556]

So Snowden can't get asylum for revealing unconstitutional activities ?

 

[Contumacious]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/17/opinion/wiebe-snowden-amnesty/

Federal Government , of course.

.

 

[tod evans]

See avatar.

<<<<<

 

[JK/SEA]

Snowden, guilty as hell. I nominate Pete King to get his shit together, go find him, and bring him back alive...by himself.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

the NSA has basically stolen all the information it has on everyone, nobody voluntarily gave that stuff over.

so the NSA is saying that Snowden is a criminal because he "stole" stuff that the NSA stole to begin with? does not compute.

Welcome to Statist Logic 101.

 

[69360]

Both but Snowden has the moral high ground.

 

[acptulsa]

I just thought of a Constitutional Amendment I would like to see.

Exposure of a violation of the Constitution can never, ever be a violation of federal, state or local U.S. law.

Or, if that can't be made to work, anyone who exposes a violation of the Constitution and violates a statute in the process must immediately be pardoned by the president. Any president failing to pardon this person is considered to have committed a felony, and is therefore subject to immediate impeachment. And not only is the president subject to impeachment, but to prevent a House dominated by the president's party from 'losing' this impeachment in committee, articles of impeachment are automatically put on the very next session of the House docket and entered into the Congressional Record. Therefore, the House, and if they say yea, then the Senate are forced to judge whether the president is correct in his decision that the person like Snowden did not in fact expose a violation of the Constitution.

I say that would be the best Amendment to the Constitution in over 150 years (or at least as good as the 19th and 21st). In fact, I'm so proud of this idea I'm inclined to contact Rep. Bridenstine and suggest it.

 

[acptulsa]

How about this?

ARTICLE XXVIII

Articles of impeachment shall not be subject to committee consideration prior to being introduced for consideration by the full House of Representatives. Upon being introduced by any duly elected or duly appointed member of the House, any articles of impeachment of the President of the United States shall be introduced for debate by the full House as the first order of business of the current, or the very next, session of the House.

Any person or persons who violate any federal statutes or regulations of the United States of America, or any state, county or local statutes for any jurisdiction therein, in the process of exposing a violation of the Constitution of the United States by any federal office holder, secretary or employee of any federal agency, bureau or department, any cabinet members, ambassadors, or members of their staffs or any Congressional office holder's staff, or any contractor or subcontractor in active federal employ, shall be pardoned for that specific violation of the law by the President of the United States. Failure to pardon this person or these persons for the crimes they committed in the process of exposing this Constitutional violation shall be considered a felonious act by the President of the United States, and grounds for immediate impeachment proceedings.

 

[Grubb556]

I just thought of a Constitutional Amendment I would like to see.

Exposure of a violation of the Constitution can never, ever be a violation of federal, state or local U.S. law.

Isn't that implicit though ? I know in Canada, some guy broke a law (using narocotics), but the court ruled it unconstitutional and thus the guy didn't actually break any laws.

 

[acptulsa]

Isn't that implicit though ? I know in Canada, some guy broke a law (using narocotics), but the court ruled it unconstitutional and thus the guy didn't actually break any laws.

Seems to me like it should be. But Snowden is still on the run.

There has been a lot of talk around these forums for all of the six years (well, five years fifty one and a half weeks) I've been here about giving the Constitution teeth to enforce itself. I think this might be one good way to do that.

 

[AngryCanadian]

The NSA, GW Bush, Obama and previous American governments whom were in favor of these surveillance programs. Why should an NSA leaker get the blame but not the NSA itself? nor the patriotic act?

 

[osan]

the NSA has basically stolen all the information it has on everyone, nobody voluntarily gave that stuff over.

so the NSA is saying that Snowden is a criminal because he "stole" stuff that the NSA stole to begin with? does not compute.

But... but... global warming... corporations...

Meps...
Meps...
Meps...