PRISM -- NSA Monitoring Web Services We All Use?

[Loki]

Wow, that certainly leads to unfair trials.

[Khendraja'aro]

Not to mention that they'll throw the book at him and probably accuse him of 100+ different crimes with a 1,000 years of prison total. Or some other nonsense your justice system deigns to use in those cases.

Or have you forgotten Swartz?

I mean, take stuff like this:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...thirteen.shtml

The new filing basically realleges all the original charges but ups the felony count by providing specific dates for each action, turning each marked date into its own felony charge.

And, wham, one "crime" becomes 9.

[Ominous Gamer]

and I doubt he wants to experience the isolation (including having to sleep naked) that Manning went through, or the 1000 days of confinement without trial.

[Aimless]

All of this new information leaked by Snowden is clearly in the interest of the American public.



You mean our judges and juries are told how to rule by politicians and intelligence agencies?

We'll never know, because half the trial will be conducted in secret. They'll probably tell his keepers to torture and thoroughly damage Snowden however

[RandBlade]

All of this new information leaked by Snowden is clearly in the interest of the American public.

Is it lies or the truth?

[Loki]

We'll never know, because half the trial will be conducted in secret. They'll probably tell his keepers to torture and thoroughly damage Snowden however

Because that's what we do with American prisoners.

Is it lies or the truth?

It's not in the American public interest to reveal this information whether it's true or not.

and I doubt he wants to experience the isolation (including having to sleep naked) that Manning went through, or the 1000 days of confinement without trial.

Which says nothing about the fairness of the trial.

Khen, you're basically in kat land by claiming that the American judicial system does not provide fair trials.

[RandBlade]

It's not in the American public interest to reveal this information whether it's true or not.

How very anti-First Amendment of you.

[Loki]

How very anti-First Amendment of you.

WTF, revealing state secrets is covered by the first amendment?

[Aimless]

Because that's what we do with American prisoners.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3389446.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...n-treatment-un

So, yes, that may in fact be precisely what you do with a certain category of American prisoners. How frickin' retarded is it, btw, to assume someone who's been brutalized for the better part of three years will have a truly fair (but secret!!!) trial for Snowden, the best bet is to not end up in a secret trial in the US. Let's face it, you're arguing from the position that "fair trial" = "a trial that ends in execution or brutal and painful life in prison".

[Loki]

No, I'm arguing that your knowledge of the American legal system seems to be as solid as kat's knowledge of the American political system. The American legal system is far from perfect, but it's no worse than your average Western legal system. To claim that America does not provide fair trials to American citizens is about as intelligent as claiming that America isn't a democracy.

Manning's problem is that he's in the military, and military trials are not the same as civilian ones. Not that there's any evidence that he won't get a fair trial.

[Aimless]

That's just a load of nonsense. As if fairness is a binary either-or trait where it's either North Korea or The West As if anyone's asserting that all trials in the US are unfair As if the US legal system is no worse than the average western legal system

You're right about one thing: it's as intelligent to claim that the US isn't a democracy as it is to claim that no US citizen gets anything like a fair trial. You are of course as usual also completely wrong about what anyone in the discussion is actually saying.

[LittleFuzzy]

We'll never know, because half the trial will be conducted in secret. They'll probably tell his keepers to torture and thoroughly damage Snowden however

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3389446.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...n-treatment-un

So, yes, that may in fact be precisely what you do with a certain category of American prisoners. How frickin' retarded is it, btw, to assume someone who's been brutalized for the better part of three years will have a truly fair (but secret!!!) trial for Snowden,

Minx, you're assuming far too much about conditions here. There is absolutely nothing there that suggests any actual abuse. Solitary confinement is not torture and the use of solitary no more means Manning is being brutalized then the presence of a campfire means you're getting burned. It creates a situation where it is possible to suffer or inflict harm if you screw up. Now you are perfectly free to say that you don't trust prison officials, the US military, the US government, or anyone else to show intelligence (the board's libertarians say this all the time, after all) but that doesn't mean you can turn that lack of trust into the definitive claims above without backup.

I find the complaint at the end of the Guardian article, about the lack of privacy in communications, to be particularly hilarious. All prisoner communications are monitored, regardless of whether you've been convicted or are just being held pending trial. In US law there are three areas of privileged communication: legal, medical, religious. Attorney/client, physician/patient, and priest/confessional communications are guaranteed confidence. Everything else gets monitored. And this is an espionage case. At its base insufficiently monitored communication is what led to the alleged crime. Of course they're going to be strict in enforcing those restrictions.

[Flixy]

The first article kinda amused me, since a bunch of the complaints (no good picture of the suspect, for example) are more standard over here - odd to complain about that considering a bunch of us complained about the 'perp walk' DSK got. And in a trial involving espionage, it's hardly surprising that good parts of it are closed.

I'm curious about one thing: is whistleblowing an accepted defense? I mean, it's pretty clear in both cases they did break the law. Can an excuse of 'the people have a right to know' stand up in court, legally?

[LittleFuzzy]

No, "whistleblowing" is not a defense against criminal charges. It might be a reason to refrain from prosecuting but really, whistleblowing as a protected practice is something you're supposed to be communicating to watchdog authorities, not the general public or private interests, including the media. Protected whistleblowing against the federal government pretty much means trying to convince Congress-critters that there's a politically/electorally useful investigation to be made, in which case they'll shield you from the Executive branch. Providing documents to anyone but an investigatory office in the government is always, always going to leave you exposed to some sort of legal action and probably guilty/liable for it.

[Spenni]

No, I'm arguing that your knowledge of the American legal system seems to be as solid as kat's knowledge of the American political system. The American legal system is far from perfect, but it's no worse than your average Western legal system. To claim that America does not provide fair trials to American citizens is about as intelligent as claiming that America isn't a democracy.

Manning's problem is that he's in the military, and military trials are not the same as civilian ones. Not that there's any evidence that he won't get a fair trial.

Na hes screwed. what he did is the definition of treachery in UCMJ. Unless by some miracle he gets it thrown out on technicality later on.

[Loki]

He's screwed because he blatantly broke the law and the military code, not because he won't get a fair trial. Anyway, he's lucky he did this in the 21st century, or he'd be facing more than life in prison.

[Aimless]

He's screwed because he blatantly broke the law and the military code, not because he won't get a fair trial. Anyway, he's lucky he did this in the 21st century, or he'd be facing more than life in prison.

Jesus Christ, this is the standard you're holding to?

[Loki]

Do you even have a point? He's screwed because there's overwhelming evidence against him, not because he won't get a fair trial.

[RandBlade]

No, "whistleblowing" is not a defense against criminal charges. It might be a reason to refrain from prosecuting but really, whistleblowing as a protected practice is something you're supposed to be communicating to watchdog authorities, not the general public or private interests, including the media. Protected whistleblowing against the federal government pretty much means trying to convince Congress-critters that there's a politically/electorally useful investigation to be made, in which case they'll shield you from the Executive branch. Providing documents to anyone but an investigatory office in the government is always, always going to leave you exposed to some sort of legal action and probably guilty/liable for it.

So who do you whistleblow to when its the big government your whistleblowing against?

[Khendraja'aro]

You don't. You keep your mouth shut and continue to be a good Orwellian cog in the machine.

Do you even have a point? He's screwed because there's overwhelming evidence against him, not because he won't get a fair trial.

Yeah, keep yourself telling that. Again, Swartz.

Then again, it just landed the US government in a lot of hot water regarding the EU, specifically Germany. Not too happy with Britain either, by the way.

[earthJoker]

So who do you whistleblow to when its the big government your whistleblowing against?

The big government knows whats best for you. In particular if it not your own government.

Then again, it just landed the US government in a lot of hot water regarding the EU, specifically Germany. Not too happy with Britain either, by the way.

And Die Muddi can't turn a blind eye on this one, it's election year.

[RandBlade]

I agree best on this issue I think with Rand Paul: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...eliana-johnson

Snowden may have broken the law but I think that the public had a right to know what was going on and when Congress is being lied to on the issue its rich Loki to claim he was going against the interests of all of America's public. If the public is being spied on while Congress and the public are explicitly being told they're not then yes I think the truth is in their interests.

[Hazir]

I think it would be totally acceptable if Snowden would get asylum in the EU. Probably no government other than the British government would dare extradite him.

[RandBlade]

I disagree. It wouldn't surprise me if they would - maybe not immediately.

We definitely would.

[Hazir]

I disagree. It wouldn't surprise me if they would - maybe not immediately.

We definitely would.

I don't think you have any idea of how angry the Germans are.

[Aimless]

Pah, just more German anti-tech lunacy and neo-luddism.

[Loki]

I think it would be totally acceptable if Snowden would get asylum in the EU. Probably no government other than the British government would dare extradite him.

Only if they want to permanently poison relations.

[Enoch the Red]

Only if they want to permanently poison relations.

You don't think you might be overstating the impact just a little?

[Loki]

You don't think you might be overstating the impact just a little?

No, I'm not. There was a good story about why Russia and China are unwilling to give Snowden asylum; the basic premise was that they might be competitors of the US, but they don't want to become enemies. Any EU country stooping to a level that China and Russia were unwilling to stoop to would find itself in the doghouse for decades. Not only would it cause an immediate fury, but any time Snowden would make an appearance on television, relations would plummet.

[earthJoker]

Only if they want to permanently poison relations.

It wouldn't be the first time winning an election was more important than the US relations. Why would you risk power if you're relation to the US are worth shit anyway. That's the main problem the US has at the moment, the "with us" option is getting less lucrative every day while the alternatives are getting more interesting.