Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: Snowden (Score 1) 87

by cold fjord (#48233235) Attached to: When Snowden Speaks, Future Lawyers (and Judges) Listen

Snowden admitted that he took the job at NSA to steal documents. He planned it from the beginning.

There is no evidence that he made a meaningful attempt to complain about the legality of the programs. You would think that since he managed to steal 1,700,000 documents that he might have managed to nab a personal email or two to demonstrate that, but no. Why not? Maybe because it never happened and was irrelevant to his plan from the start which was to steal documents.

The surveillance programs were backed by Congress, the President, and some were even subject to the courts. In previous cases that have tested similar questions the courts have accepted them. So who appointed Snowden to overthrow the process of our democratic form of government as well as damage the security of America's allies?

There are a number of interesting parallels between Snowden's case and that of Kim Philby. Both apparently were driven by ideology. Philby was driven by communism. Snowden became disaffected with the US years before he stole the documents, and displays a misinformed and warped view of the Constitution and law of the US. Snowden seems to have something of a martyr complex as well. I have little doubt he quite satisfied with himself.

As to other rewards involving payments, who can tell? We can't exactly see his bank account, can we?

One thing we can note if the growing number of instances of odd actions or statements by Snowden that are suspicious. Why did the Russian government claim to be surprised by Snowden's arrival when he is reported to have stayed for days at the Russian embassy in Hong Kong? How did it happen that a personal friend of Putin that is also on the public committee of the successor agency to the KGB is the lawyer representing Snowden in Russia? Where is the proof that he really tried to file complaints in the NSA? (He can steal Australian plans to bug Indonesian government officials, but not is own emails? Really?) Snowden claims to have been a spy, and yet his job was a system administrator. The list goes on, and on.

Comment: Re:Fuck Snowden (Score 1) 87

by cold fjord (#48233189) Attached to: When Snowden Speaks, Future Lawyers (and Judges) Listen

Benjamin Franklin opened other colonist's mail for intelligence purposes in the Revolutionary War. George Washington ran a spy ring during and after the Revolutionary War that spied on other colonists.

It seems there is more to establishing and keeping the American Republic than you understand. Perhaps you just aren't capable. What a pity.

Comment: Re:Not just "unreasonable". (Score 1) 87

by cold fjord (#48233149) Attached to: When Snowden Speaks, Future Lawyers (and Judges) Listen

You seem to be making brazenly irrational claims of treason not supported by the Constitution which strictly limits charges of treason and its proof. You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to the Constitution or the law. You also apparently have a footgear fetish.

Comment: Re:Not just "unreasonable". (Score 1) 87

by sumdumass (#48233133) Attached to: When Snowden Speaks, Future Lawyers (and Judges) Listen

High crimes and misdemeanors are such immoral and unlawful acts as are nearly allied and equal in guilt to felony, yet, owing to some technical circumstance, do I not fall within the definition of "felony." State " v. Knapp, 6 Conn. 417, 16 Am. Dec. 68.

Law Dictionary: What is HIGH CRIMES? definition of HIGH CRIMES (Black's Law Dictionary)

High crimes can include felonies but does not mean felonies. Misdemeanors and other offenses or a combination of offenses that are not felonies or not criminal can be included as high crimes. And example of this might be sexual harassment in the workplace which isn't a criminal offense unless a crime happens in order to facilitate the harassment. This would/could be counted as a high crime with or without the criminal qualifier and grounds for impeachment even though it would not be a felony or misdemeanor or criminal in and of itself.

Comment: Re:Not just "unreasonable". (Score 1) 87

by sumdumass (#48233089) Attached to: When Snowden Speaks, Future Lawyers (and Judges) Listen

Sigh.. Where in the constitution does it delve into any punishment for any violation of anything within it? There is a limit on punishment but nowhere does it prescribe any punishment or prison sentence. Congress has to make laws that do that. Therefore a violation of the US constitution cannot be a felony unless a law makes it so.

I know what I wrote. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean you can change it just to challenge it.

Comment: Re:Not just "unreasonable". (Score 1) 87

by cold fjord (#48233059) Attached to: When Snowden Speaks, Future Lawyers (and Judges) Listen

As I see it, every agency that has a hand in the domestic surveillance programs detailed by Snowden is in violation of Federal law, and yes these are felonies. From Title 18 of the United States Code:

Very nice, but I see you neglected to quote any of the legislation authorizing the activities of the intelligence agencies.

Any reason for that?

Comment: Re:Not just "unreasonable". (Score 1) 87

by sumdumass (#48233049) Attached to: When Snowden Speaks, Future Lawyers (and Judges) Listen

As you see it maybe. But as the government sees it, it doesn't violate the constitution and it is legal which is why even after popular protest, they continue doing it.

But if you look at those sections of law, you will see that 241 that you actually have to conspire to- conspire actually means intend in this sense because two or more people are attempting to work out how to do whatever the law says is a violation. But if congress which is barred from passing unconstitutional laws passes a law making it legal, then it really isn't conspiring to violate someone's rights even if the eventual outcome is a violation of the constitution. The same applies for section 242 where you need to prove willfully violated the constitution. Following existing law likely would excuse the violation as not willfully intending to violate the constitution.

And don't get bogged down by color of law. It doesn't mean that if someone is following a law that turns out to be unconstitutional they are in violation. Its more like the cop arrests you for driving while black to teach you not to drive on this side of town again. It's more like when that cop is pressured to justify his actions, he invents something like a broken taillight which is why it was necessary to arrest you.

Comment: Re:Snowden (Score 1) 87

by cold fjord (#48233033) Attached to: When Snowden Speaks, Future Lawyers (and Judges) Listen

I think it's highly probable that both Russia and China already had much of what Snowden took with him on his laptop.

I find that people repeatedly make whatever assumption is necessary to give Snowden a pass.

One question though: Russia started making significant upgrades to its electronic surveillance and intelligence systems after Snowden's leaks. They also moved off from computers to typewriters for some highly sensitive documents. If they already knew all that Snowden stole, why would they do that now? Why not earlier?

Comment: Re:Snowden (Score 1) 87

by cold fjord (#48233025) Attached to: When Snowden Speaks, Future Lawyers (and Judges) Listen

Snowden badly damaged not only US intelligence but also the intelligence services of many of its allies by leaking massive numbers of classified documents as well as causing numerous diplomatic problems. He leaked far, far more than just aspects of operations that might have a civil rights dispute. Snowden is no patriot.

Comment: Re: Snowden (Score 1) 87

by sumdumass (#48233019) Attached to: When Snowden Speaks, Future Lawyers (and Judges) Listen

I wonder how you would react if someone detain the U.S. president and storm the Air Force one with dogs and machine guns in search for someone.

I would probably demand we bomb them to hell and back. But I'm not from Ecuador.

Snowden would have had none of that happen if he didn't jump in front of a camera and proclaim he was the source. Guess what, when people go on TV and claim they are bank robbers, expect crap to get difficult for them to travel. Snowden decided to go to China, then fly to Russia and possibly eventually to Ecuador. His passport was canceled before he left China but the trip to Russia was just so important that he had to go. However long he intended to stay is besides the point, he had to go.

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Working...