PRISM

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by BigV

And I should trust Putin's public remarks, take them at face value because....??? Please refresh my memory, because I can't recall any reason to do so.

You should also not trust him with any of your jewelry.

[Griff]

Joe the disagreement lies with the determination of when the security state becomes counter-productive to its own claimed goals. The leakers are traitors to the state but they are not traitors to the people.

[Lamplighter]

<snip>These guys who disclose secret information to the general public
through leaks are traitors to their nation and harm us in many, many ways.

They also signed non-disclosure statements to qualify for access to the information they have leaked,
and for that reason alone they should be jailed.

I have trouble with each of these statements,
primarily because I don't think there is a bright red line
between being " a traitor " a " whistleblower " and " civil disobediance "

When leaks occur about government activities, the first reaction
of the government is to publicly label the person a "spy" or "traitor"
and the government usually seeks some kind of criminal charge(s).
This is what is happening with Snowden now.
Only time will tell if harm was done, and if the government charges are valid.

....

Then with respect to signing non-disclosure charges, again I don't think there's a bright red line.

The case of Thomas Drake, starting in the 2002, is a prime example
of someone signing all sorts of non-disclosure documents
and advancing through promotions up through the CIA and NSA.
He followed all the proscribed legal procedures to correct issues.
He then publicly disclosed problems he had identified as "illegal",
and was then indicted by the government, as I described above.

Basically, the conflict in non-disclosure agreements is "informed consent"
A person cannot consent to something (secrets) they do not yet know
If consent is a pre-condition and only after consenting they can learn the secret,
their non-disclosure agreement may well become the lesser issue.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

... They also signed non-disclosure statements to qualify for access to the information they have leaked, and for that reason alone they should be jailed.

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Basically, the conflict in non-disclosure agreements is "informed consent" A person cannot consent to something (secrets) they do not yet know If consent is a pre-condition and only after consenting they can learn the secret, their non-disclosure agreement may well become the lesser issue.

Divulging classified information has always been illegal; but, the government has always had difficulty in successfully prosecuting such cases. That's because the standard in criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt" which can be created if a violator uncovered illegal activity, official misconduct, wasn't clear on what was classified and what wasn't, feared reprisal as an internal whistleblower; or, had a crystalizing moment in which the violator became a conscientious objector to something subsequently learned.

So the government went the corporate route back around '86-'87 and started having everyone with a security clearance sign nondisclosure agreements; otherwise, lose their security clearances and most likely their jobs ... including military personnel who would be immediately processed for separation. I signed mine.

The nondisclosure agreements in themselves did not make divulging classified information illegal, there were already laws on the books for that. The agreements reminded people that it was illegal and more importantly provided for forfeiture to the government of any tangible gains a violator may realize from the breach of security. The government can sue violators just as corporations can sue individuals who violate nondisclosure agreements protecting proprietary information. These are civil cases in which the burden of proof is simply "a preponderance of the evidence" that they broke the law.

Shades of O.J.

Snowden could have stayed for trial in the court of public opinion and sought a Presidential pardon; but no, he ran like a traitor. Even if he never sees a day in jail here, the government can try to seize his assets anywhere they may be and every chance it gets for the rest of his life.