Snowden Granted Temporary Asylum In Russia

Nice "whataboutery".

Your test was whether a nation is viewed as a rogue state. The US is viewed as a rogue state by many.

If the test is whether it's a technical violation of the law of the country against which the disclosure is made, I'm guessing you would have sent Vladimir Pasechnik back to the Soviet Union?

"That's the law" is a weak argument when you're discussing disclosure of classified programmes by a claimed whistleblower. Your arguments are superficial in the extreme.

You think the US is as much of a rogue state as Nazi Germany was? That was the example given.

No one is denying that what he did was illegal, only that what he did could be be considered morally right, so he shouldn't be punished.

Reply 61

MostUncivilised

3

Original post by rakusmaximus

No one is denying that what he did was illegal

Actually many are.

So, no. You are quite wrong my friend. Many fine lawyers believe that what he did is absolutely protected under US federal law.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 62

rakusmaximus

10

Original post by MostUncivilised

Actually many are.

So, no. You are quite wrong my friend. Many fine lawyers believe that what he did is absolutely protected under US federal law.

The term 'whistleblower' is bandied around, but the federal law protecting them doesn't apply to state employees that are privy to the nation's secrets. Which means he isn't classed as a whistleblower under the law.

Reply 63

Aj12

18

I think when it comes to this sort of thing you have to judge what he did by the effects it had rather than did he break the law. As others have pointed out just breaking the law does not make something automatically wrong. He leaked a pretty disgusting operation being used by the US to spy on its own citizens that really as far as I can tell pretty unnecessary.

I think it's sad he has had to take Asylum in a place like Russia where if a similar case happened the person involved could no doubt look forward to murder in prison.

Reply 64

MostUncivilised

3

Original post by rakusmaximus

The term 'whistleblower' is bandied around, but the federal law protecting them doesn't apply to state employees that are privy to the nation's secrets. Which means he isn't classed as a whistleblower under the law.

I'm not talking about the WPA, not meeting the WPA requirements doesn't mean you're axiomatically not a whistleblower. I'm talking about the actual provisions of the Espionage Act. The relevant tests are

has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation

and

uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United Stateso

In each case where the government has had an opportunity to test Espionage Act against comparable alleged unauthorised disclosures made directly to the press (Thomas Drake and Daniel Ellsberg), they have failed to obtain a conviction / failed to take the charges to trial

Equally, US federal statute law is not absolute; there is something known as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is very arguable that the application of this act in this case would not meet the "clear and present danger" test.

Finally, it's incredible that someone lecturing us about what the law is (as usual, a non-law student? Correct me if I'm wrong) would proceed to say that no-one denies he's broken the law. There is something know as a presumption of innocence. Or do you take "charged" to mean "guilty"?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 65

Bart1331

Original post by Aj12

I think when it comes to this sort of thing you have to judge what he did by the effects it had rather than did he break the law. As others have pointed out just breaking the law does not make something automatically wrong. He leaked a pretty disgusting operation being used by the US to spy on its own citizens that really as far as I can tell pretty unnecessary.

I think it's sad he has had to take Asylum in a place like Russia where if a similar case happened the person involved could no doubt look forward to murder in prison.

I really agree with this, thank you for highlighting what I think is a very important point. Just because something is legal does not make it right. If you committed the crime of being Jewish in Nazi Germany, the penalty was the concentration camps. If "criminals should face their punishment", does that mean the Jews should have just faced their punishment if they were prepared to commit their crimes?

Legality isn't a reliable indicator of whether something is right or not, because any corrupt regime will legislate to make it's actions legal, and the actions of any opposition illegal.

If someone in a dictatorship risks persecution and possible execution to bring to light government oppression of the population, we usually call that person a hero and praise them for making a courageous decision. We never once say "But hey this guy committed a crime, he should be facing trial". When Snowden exposed US crimes against their own people, risking persecution and assassination at the hands of Obama and his government, he was labelled a "terrorist" and a "traitor". So will the US government be labeling all whistleblowers "terrorists" from now on, or just those who expose their own crimes?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 66

Ripper-Roo

Original post by Drewski

The man committed a crime. Like Manning, he should be put on trial. He knew what he was doing, he knew it was illegal.
If he was truly a whistleblower, he'd have taken his information to a member of the Congress/Senate and then had the relevant protections.

That doesn't make what he did wrong.

Reply 67

TobyLarone

Snowden Granted Temporary Asylum In Russia

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you