Conservative Site Argues Profiting from Snowden 'Treason' May Violate Law (judicialwatch.org) 236
"A federal appellate court has ruled that government employees, such as Snowden, who signed privacy agreements can't profit from disclosing information without first obtaining agency approval," writes the conservative advocacy site Judicial Watch. Slashdot reader schwit1 quotes their article:
This would make it illegal to profit from his crimes and the Department of Justice should confiscate all money made by the violators. Snowden is no whistleblower. In fact he violated his secrecy agreement, which means he and his conspirators can't materially profit from his fugitive status, violation of law, aiding and abetting of a crime and providing material support to terrorism.
In addition, they argue that both an upcoming movie about Snowden by Oliver Stone and the 2014 documentary Citizenfour "may be in violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act, which forbids providing material support or resources for acts of international terrorism... It's bad enough that people are profiting from Snowden's treason, but adding salt to the wound, the Obama administration is doing nothing about it. "
In addition, they argue that both an upcoming movie about Snowden by Oliver Stone and the 2014 documentary Citizenfour "may be in violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act, which forbids providing material support or resources for acts of international terrorism... It's bad enough that people are profiting from Snowden's treason, but adding salt to the wound, the Obama administration is doing nothing about it. "
But.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This "Conservative site" is also profiting from Snowden with their bullshit click-bait article.
Re: But.... (Score:3, Insightful)
So did the 90% of the media, heck Slashdot has ads and is profiting right now. I say lockem all up!
Except he wasn't (Score:5, Interesting)
Snowden worked for Booz Allen Hamilton, a contractor to the NSA, at the time he leaked classified documents. Since he was NOT a government employee, he is not covered by the court decision mentioned in the article. Of course, Judicial Watch knows that.
And if Snowden HAD been a government employee, he would have been covered by the Federal Whistleblower law and would not be at risk of prosecution for the leaks, since he proved that the US government was breaking the law.
Re: Except he wasn't (Score:4, Insightful)
Quiet....this the year of no accountability. We can't have whistle-blowers running rampant in our federal government.
Re: Except he wasn't (Score:5, Interesting)
The attempts to smear Snowden continue to this day. Within days of the leaks becoming public, all the news outlets were telling us that he was a college dropout and that his girlfriend was a poledancer. They didn't mention that the NSA was paying him $200,000 per year and that his girlfriend was a ballet dancer who did pole dancing as part of performance with an acrobatic troupe in Hawaii.
Snowden should get the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his defense of the Constitutional protection of the 4th Amendment.
Re: Except he wasn't (Score:2)
Re: Except he wasn't (Score:4, Insightful)
Because 'Interesting' and 'Insightful' have a lot of overlap depending on the reader's state of mind.
Re:Except he wasn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Except he wasn't (Score:4, Insightful)
Only, he would lose on the first round because his assets would all be impounded, and he couldn't afford to hire a lawyer in the first place.
I'm sure that is called by another name, yes, blackmail.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Since he was NOT a government employee, he is not covered by the court decision mentioned in the article. Of course, Judicial Watch knows that.
Snowden was an CIA employee before going to work for Booz Allen, so he would have, like the former CIA employee Snepp in the court case, signed a standard agreement [archives.gov] not to divulge classified information either during employment or after. In addition, he would also have to sign a similar document working for Booz Allen since it was doing contract work for the NSA and
Re: Except he wasn't (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Except he wasn't (Score:4, Insightful)
Not by the American definition of 'traitor', he isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
he would have been covered by the Federal Whistleblower law
He would most certainly not have been protected, as has been covered ad nauseam elsewhere. One of the critical factors in civil disobedience/whistleblowing is procedual adherance (i.e. going through authorized channels). If you think Snowden is some sort of latter-day Ellsburg, you might want to be aware of the fact that Ellsburg not only attempted Congressional channels but also turned himself in after leaking the information. Civil disobedience means holding yourself accountable to the system. It is most
Re: (Score:3)
The signatories of that document 'turned themselves in' by publicly announcing their intentions to 'defy (British) authority'
That's not turning themselves in. If they turned themselves in, they'd have handed themselves over to the crown. Snowden, like them, associated his real name with his actions. Snowden, like them, did not hand themselves over to the authorities to be arested.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That about sums it up. Their analysis is fundamentally flawed. As a general rule, "Son of Sam" laws make it illegal to profit from your own crime. Snowden can't legally sell his movie rights. They don't prevent him from giving those rights away, nor prevent anyone from making a movie about him or profiting from it, so long as those people were not involved in the original crime. Any law that went further than that would almost certainly fail a first-amendment challenge.
More significantly, those laws apply only after conviction for that crime, or in some cases after a plea bargain. In this case, he hasn't been tried (even in absentia), so those laws don't factor in.
And that's assuming those laws even pass constitutional muster. Many of these laws have been overturned for unconstitutionality. And because laws can't generally be overturned until someone can show harm from the law, the fact that they haven't been overturned yet does not necessarily mean that the laws are constitutional, because there may not have been anyone with standing to challenge them yet.
Re: (Score:3)
They are just trying to apply civil forfeiture laws to the Snowden case. It works so well (/s) for other cases why not try it for this one!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Right Idea, Wrong Target (Score:2, Interesting)
The DOJ ought to arrest the conservative advocacy site Judicial Watch for treason. Not treason against the nation but treason against their own conservative values.
Time was an authentic 'conservative' understood the need for privacy, individual liberty, and freedom. The government was potentially dangerous and had to be kept limited. Also, there's this little known and widely abused document called the Constitution that conservatives used to like a lot. Time was.
Snowden is more 'conservative' by these m
Re:Right Idea, Wrong Target (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:But.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Is is all very special grade class 8 hidden advertising. Nobody actually cracked the cypher so far so it is impossible to see them. It supposedly may act on your brain although.
treason (Score:5, Insightful)
The current US administration has been caught spying in violation of the constutition. The penalty for treason includes death. I'm not sure why snowden gets brought up when I would like to see the current heads of the FBI and homeland security swinging from the end of a noose as justice demands.
Why stop there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Plenty of congresscritters, state legislators, justices of the court, prosecutors, law enforcement, and military personnel who similiarly deserve a trip to hangtown for taking actions in direct contradiction to their oaths.
Did Snowden take an oath, or did he merely get security clearance and an NDA? Because if it was the latter then he's a hell of a lot less guity of wrongdoing that the aforementioned parties.
Re: treason (Score:2, Interesting)
Your vote isn't what counts. What counts is the person counting your vote.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: treason (Score:3)
I don't think it is that simple. Perversion of the constitution appears to go beyond party lines and more into the current culture of the halls of power - congressional, president or bureaucratic. The difference now is that someone noticed and blew the whistle. The result of those who would wish to hide the dirty laundry are doing everything to point fingers elsewhere.
It can be argued than an NDA that is incompatible with the constitution should be null and void?
Re:treason (Score:5, Informative)
Because the Bush administration was never caught spying in violation of the Constitution. Forget the whole PATRIOT Act or the administration forcing phone companies to install digital taps so the government could listen in on everyone's phone calls?
As soon as Bush and Cheney are swinging from the end of a noose I'll be more than happy to agree with your demand.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't think the GP was arguing against Bush and Cheney being hanged for treason; he was only addressing the current administration.
"treason" "terrorism" (Score:2, Insightful)
You keep using those words, but I don't think you know what they mean.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you could at least argue treason (hopefully unsuccessfully since if anything he uncovered a lot more violations of the Constitution than his own actions). Certainly what he did violated Federal laws.
But claiming it's terrorism is absurd. The most common definition: "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes." He neither made any threats, used any violence, nor benefited politically from it. In fact, even if he had threatened to release documents b
Re:"treason" "terrorism" (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if the facts of what he leaked and why are completely ignored, along with his Oath of Office, the definition of Treason, the 4th Amendment...
Federal laws meant to cover up shredding of our 4th Amendment rights. But hey, we gotta have priorities, like talking about how Snowden must must must face trial, while ignoring the fact that each and every warrantless NSA wiretap is punishable by 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Re:"treason" "terrorism" (Score:5, Insightful)
The current government only prosecutes peons and gives themselves exception, so they will never face trial. Hell when the White House itself committed treason a few years back for violating the same law as Snowden (the Espionage Act of 1917) by releasing a CIA agent's name and it was pretty much laughed off as a mistake. Pretty much the same thing happened in Plamegate.
Re: (Score:2)
The current government, the last government, the one before that... right back to the first time some tribal strong-man proclaimed himself king.
Re: (Score:3)
The US has an extremely narrow definition of the term "treason", for reasons having to do with the monarchy they rebelled against. Snowden is most certainly not a traitor under his nation's laws.
Re: (Score:2)
You keep using those words, but I don't think you know what they mean.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
That very much applies to these words.
Treason law is rarely and inconsistently applied in the US. The last case was the Rosenbergs, who passed atomic bomb secrets to the Soviets in the early Cold War.
But back in the US civil war, a man was executed for treason for pulling down a US flag.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
They are among a small set of words and phrases that let a politician pass almost any piece of legislation without attracting much scrutiny. Other words and phrases include "to protect our children", "socialism", and "communism" (though this is mostly historical).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Whistleblower trumps NDA / Top Secret.
The entire Executive Branch up to most recent PotUSes, Judicial Branch Judges on those FISA kangaroo Courts and every member of Congress that wrote, voted for and did nothing to stop unconstitutional laws like the Patriot Act are all guilty of Treason by way of extreme harm caused to the Constitution, bill of rights and the people that were supposed to be protected by these.
In other words, until such time as those I listed above are charged, arrested and judged guilty a
Re: "treason" "terrorism" (Score:2, Insightful)
unless, of course the US regards journalists as enemies.
The right wing certainly does.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't "willfully" aid any enemy, unless of course the US regards journalists as enemies.
Not yet, but depending on the outcome of the next election it could...
Re: "treason" "terrorism" (Score:5, Informative)
Article III, Section 3:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
If Enemies is a subset of Everyone, then giving Aid and Comfort to Everyone is an act of Treason, at least until the US makes peace with Everyone. Specifically what Snowdon exposed was the difficulty the US Government has in distinguishing between Everyone and Enemy.
"Eddard Stark: What you suggest is treason.
Petyr 'Littlefinger' Baelish: Only if we lose."
Re: (Score:2)
Article III, Section 3:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
If Enemies is a subset of Everyone, then giving Aid and Comfort to Everyone is an act of Treason, at least until the US makes peace with Everyone. Specifically what Snowdon exposed was the difficulty the US Government has in distinguishing between Everyone and Enemy.
"Eddard Stark: What you suggest is treason.
Petyr 'Littlefinger' Baelish: Only if we lose."
I think it could be argued that Bush, Cheney, Obama, and numerous CIA / NSA / DHS directors are enemies of the United States, and therefore aiding them is an act of treason.
Not a strong enough tie (Score:2)
I accept and believe Snowden performed treason. No doubt in my mind. But I don't think making a movie about it, absent any other strong ties, amounts to support; we have all sorts of movies about criminals as well as current events that happen to be illegal. Without some actual ties, I'd prefer to err on the side of having robust public discussion of these matters rather than worrying about this kind of thing.
Re:Not a strong enough tie (Score:5, Insightful)
Y'know what else was treason?
Back in the late 1700s, there was this infamous gang of subversives calling themselves the Founding Fathers. Oh, the things they did. It ended with bloody revolution.
Anyone that profits from anything they did back then should have all their assets seized, it is only right. Let's start with all the politicians.
Re:Not a strong enough tie (Score:4, Insightful)
The founding fathers certainly committed treason. The term doesn't necessarily mean something bad in every circumstance.
Re:Not a strong enough tie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not a strong enough tie (Score:4, Insightful)
Did the Americans overthrow the King? Did they at least overthrow Parliament? Did they even get within 3000 miles of the King and Parliament? Or did a bunch of colonial governments in N. America decide to secede?
Secession is not a successful revolution.
Next people will be claiming that it is perfectly fine for the American Congress to pass laws limiting speech even though the 1st amendment to the American Constitution stops them.
Re: (Score:2)
And you're right on your second point as well, but it will involve the Second Amendment, not the First.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it was treason and sedition and particularly pissed off the King, especially as it was triggered by the King proclaiming that all his subjects were equal (Royal Proclamation of 1763), the last thing that the American colonists wanted to admit as obviously Papists, Savages and Niggers weren't equal.
As for the Second, it is ignored or limited by everyone as it simply says that the People have the right to bear arms. Nothing about only some people having the right like the Bill of Rights of 1689 which onl
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Pedantic distinction without a difference. The government of the colonies was British - a government that was overthrown. In the colonies.
Re: (Score:2)
Did the Americans overthrow the King?
That would be high treason. But it is treason to wage war against the king in his realm. If that's not enough, they allied with the French when they were already at war with England!
But treason is always political: none of the Confederate leaders were ever charged with treason, even though clearly guilty under US law.
Its funny how history always sides with the victors. The War of Independence was good, the Confederate war of indep^Wsecession^Wrebellion was bad.
Re: (Score:2)
No, High Treason is disloyalty to the State, vs petty treason which is disloyalty against a lesser master, eg a servant killing his master. While there were a few ways to commit high treason in Great Britain, fucking the Queen or Princess (heir might not be the Kings), counterfeiting coins, the main law was similar to what was written into the American Constitution, at least as of 1695.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It's only treason if you lose. If you win, it's revolution.
No, it's both things either way. The winning sides' rhetoric doesn't change the underlying reality.
Re:Not a strong enough tie (Score:4, Informative)
Y'know what else was treason?
Back in the late 1700s, there was this infamous gang of subversives calling themselves the Founding Fathers. Oh, the things they did. It ended with bloody revolution.
Anyone that profits from anything they did back then should have all their assets seized, it is only right. Let's start with all the politicians.
When you overthrow the government you too will be able to say what is and isn't treason.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone know where this quote is from?
Re: (Score:2)
Queen Elizabeth I's godson.
Re: (Score:2)
(I'd actually prepare
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks!
A very pithy saying!
Re: (Score:2)
#MAGA
Re: (Score:2)
Way to fuck up a great quote [brainyquote.com], dumbass.
Re:Not a strong enough tie (Score:5, Insightful)
Did Snowden have any choice? He couldn't blow the whistle as it would have been covered up and he would be in a very dark hole. What the government agencies did was illegal, unethical and they abused their powers without oversight. Should Snowden have remained silent?
Re: (Score:3)
He did blow the whistle internally - his concerns were completely ignored, and he was instructed to do his job and stay out of things not his concern. That's why he went public.
Re: (Score:2)
So now we know for a fact that a fair portion of our government in illegitimate and a domestic enemy of the people. The lack of prosecution speaks to the size of the corruption. But this is still playing out.
Re: (Score:3)
What makes you so convinced it's not true? Do you see any reason why secret courts with secret hearings should be considered legitimate? Do you find indefinite imprisonment without trial to meet Constitutional muster? Is there reason to believe it's legitimate for law enforcement and prosecutors to lie in court? How about the director of the NSA perjuring himself before Congress?
Re: (Score:2)
Then you're a fool. The only path for Snowden to have upheld his Oath of Office and defend the Constitution was to do exactly what he did. It's funny, though, how you guys never call for FISA laws to be enforced against government employees, all the way up to the president himself. Up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine for each warrantless wiretap.
We're talking millions of years in prison and trillions in fines, collectively. Yet the slobbering authori
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what "you people" you imagine me to be part of.
As to the "you never call" bit, FISA doesn't apply or do what you think it does if you're seriously suggesting that. Even if we imagine some alternate world where it were entirely different but kept that name, you might want to look into "sovereign immunity" as a doctrine. It does not alone decide the issue (see also the "stripping doctrine"), but there are many hurdles to meet to do as you say even were it basically plausible. Which it is not.
Re:Not a strong enough tie (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The e-mails have already been stolen, the server has been offline for quite some time. Hillary would be insane to continue using any instance of Microsoft Exchange 2003 on an unpatched Windows 2003. It's impossible for the Russian to 'find' the e-mails by hacking into her offline e-mail server.
As much as I don't like Trump (or Hillary for that matter), I don't see in the quote where he says "please hack my opponent's offline server". He says, you got them, you find them and release them which I would prefer
Re: (Score:2)
The e-mails have already been stolen, the server has been offline for quite some time.
There is no proof of that. It's only known that they have been deleted on Hillary Clinton's email server. It's neither known if they are deleted on the other side of the respective communication (remember, each email has a Sender: and a Recipient: field), nor if any third party got knowledge of their contents. It might still be possible to recover the emails by either finding them on the other side of the respective email conversation, or by finding a place where a hitherto unknown copy of them is located.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way you can find stolen property is to be involved in the theft, either directly, or as a result of working with the thieves.
What? Do you and logic have even a passing acquaintance?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the US is engaged in a secret war with journalists, they would not be considered an enemy under the definition of the treason law.
Oh, it's *much* more serious than that! The US is engaged in a double-secret war against journalists! Snowden is guilty of double-secret treason!
One would think that the saddest part is that the above is not 100% satirical, but the truly sad part is that when those in power have their crimes exposed there are so many willing to jump to their defense and attack whistle-blowers for partisan and ideological reasons.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly treason requires physically assaulting and using violence against a government agent.
That's not even close to the legal definition of treason (already quoted elsewhere in this discussion), and nobody cares what your imaginary one is.
Fair is fair... (Score:4, Interesting)
Conservatives are professional complainers (Score:2, Insightful)
I know conservative publications make a living by complaining about the president, but fabricating something new to be offended about every single day eventually leads to some really bizarre complaints. Like the $400 million payment to Iran that was part of a deal announced in January.
It's just not working anymore.
Re:Conservatives are professional complainers (Score:5, Informative)
We owed them the money for over 30 years, after all. That's how far from "new" it was.
The thing is, Iran paid us the money for military equipment right before they experienced regime change, and then afterwards we weren't willing to give them the weapons. However much we hate their new government, we do have to give the money back. They paid us real cash money for products that we refused to deliver. They were owed a refund.
But relations were so bad, even though we knew we owed them the money we never got along with them well enough to even be able to hand it over to them. Eventually it happened, because of the nuclear deal.
There is real diplomatic value in paying it, because it has always been an important propaganda point for them. Now the story is, in the end the Americans paid the money they owed, with all the interest, in the amount that was determined by arbitration. Because the American government always pay its debts.
And we had to pay in euros, because Congress. wtf, why does Congress hate dollars?
Re: (Score:2)
Syria.
We want Iran's help there, strange but true, and this is a trivial cost to get it.
Re: (Score:3)
Definitely, absolutely, without a doubt, and without having to look it up: multiple currencies, specifically not including the dollar.
And if in fact they were allowed to include dollars, it would have been all dollars.
Where I said something about Congress, that was the hint that there was something substantial to the comment. A reason for there not be dollars. You got hung up on a pedanticism; that it was a basket of multiple currencies used to pay the debt. True. But actually, it was given in multiple ship
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the legitimate government of Iran (the one headed by the Shah) [wikipedia.org] paid the money.
LOL. TFTFY.
Perspective (Score:2, Funny)
"It's bad enough that people are profiting from Snowden's treason, but adding salt to the wound, the Obama administration is doing nothing about it."
It's not surprising he has a different viewpoint than that of these conservative bloggers... after all, he's from Kenya.
- don't fall for clickbait, be thoughtful - (Score:5, Informative)
OK, it's a 'conservative site' that presents this argument against Snowden. And here, for a mostly progressive audience, it is presented as a troll to bait the eager readers to reply with venom. It is a common tactic at slashdot to rile up the readers and it's commonly called clickbait.
It's an election season in the US and more than usual we see the polarity between left and right, progressive vs conservative. And here we may be encouraging the divide between Americans to assure there is no middle ground.
I have always thought of slashdot readers as more astute than most. I don't do Fecebook or others because they seem less astute, more strident. I hope to see some balance in this particular discussion. If some consider Snowden to be a criminal, let's examine their motivations and see if there isn't some compelling reason for that belief.
Re: (Score:3)
The conservatives have left the building. The word you are looking for is "reactionaries". They want a LOT of change so are by no means conservative.
Re: (Score:3)
If you think Slashdot is a 'mostly progressive' audience, you're a fucking idiot. Try bringing up subjects like gun control, or feminism, or environmentalism, or racism, or "political correctness," and see the response you get here.
Just because you disagree with the GP, you don't need to be so rude about it.
33 (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
We already have a candidate Jill Stein that recognizes the power of healing crystals. We don't need anyone else. She is already the best candidate in history.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know if it was as famous in the US but the Natural Law Party of Canada [wikipedia.org] wanted to further research yogic flying as a tool for achieving world peace. They had the magician Doug Henning as a member of the party. It was pretty well known when they were around. Not very respected, but well known.
TERRORISM? (Score:3)
The claim that Snowden's act constitutes 'Terrorism' is an example of the abuse of the term - and of legislation if it does - that needs to be highlighted. From first principles it can be argued that Snowden shouldn't benefit from his actions, or not, but the use of 'terrorism' legislation should be unacceptable...
Accused of a crime (Score:2)
does not equate to being convicted of a crime.
As he has yet to stand trial ( especially since it would be a one sided joke of a trial ) they would be hard pressed to follow through since he has not been convicted.
Except in very selected public opinion circles that is.
Free speech, too? (Score:3)
If I were Snowden I'd be looking at every possible media outlet to get the word out about the disgusting things I've learned. Some of those media outlets require money/funding, and inevitably will return some kind of profit (ticket sales for movies for example). But them trying to play that card on Snowden in the first place is just proof that they need to examine his motives and his position as someone who wants to stop the breaking of laws and constitutional foundations that his country was founded on by its own government. Relating him, even remotely, to "terrorism" is appalling and insulting to his integrity and willingness to essentially throw his life away for the sake of informing people that their government isn't playing by its own rules.
Is it opposite day on slashdot? (Score:2)
Manning (Score:2)
Any one else following what's going on with Manning? There's a whistle blower if there ever was one and the U.S. tortures him/her endlessly.
"Treason" vs NSA to support the USA? (Score:2)
Keep in mind that Snowden leaked to Americans and the it was the Washington Post etc that told others, but they are not being accused of treason.
Treason uncloaked (Score:2)
Judicial watch? Why not save everyone the time and link to the enquirer or Onion instead? At least their bullshit is entertaining.
Like a true "conservative" web site (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Judicial Watch is... well, you could accurately call them a conservative website, but they reflect only the worst aspects of what conservative means. They also outright lie. A lot. They are responsible for starting and occasionally perpetuating a rumor that ISIS has a training camp in northern Mexico and the Obama administration is covering it up - according to unnamed 'sources,' of course. ( http://www.judicialwatch.org/b... [judicialwatch.org] )
What about Petraeus? (Score:2)
Love that twisted last sentence (Score:2)
It's bad enough that people are profiting from Snowden's treason, but adding salt to the wound, the Obama administration is doing nothing about it.
I love how neo-cons/tea# are coming to this site always screaming and lying about O or Hillary. So what can O do? Snowden lives in Russia and published via China. Exactly what can O do? Nothing.
And another industry going abroad (Score:2)
US journalists must not report it? Ok, the internet is big and US laws don't apply in Russia, so I guess I have to turn to RT from now on for more Snowden reports...
Re: (Score:3)
You're going to grumble about how the way used are words nowadays don't fit some ancient definition nobody cares about anymore, while using the word "fascist" that way? That seems a bit odd.
Re: (Score:2)
I realize that you're an ignorant AC and not capable of much thought and too ashamed of what you say to post under your own account, but even you might want to re-read what you posted and spens a few hours considering if it makes sense.
You might also consider the foolishness of believing that something is treason just because some America haters say it is.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that terrorists might have been helped in some way by the releases (which there is no actual proof for) doesn't mean that Stone/Citizenfour are somehow materially supporting them.
Right, that's an insanely irresponsible argument that if an action you take later "supports or benefits terrorists" then it can be considered terrorism in itself. I mean, jeez, if that were the case Twitter and Facebook would be considered the most dangerous terrorist organizations on the planet.