Snowdon is a dummy

So you think that is the only solution the United States could up with???? To shoot it down?

Frank Apisa wrote:

So you think that is the only solution the United States could up with???? To shoot it down?

No. They could enforce some kind of pressure on Switzerland. (I would prefer the solution someone wrote in a letter-to-the-editor in a Geneva paper: use a Red Cross plane )

Besides, I thought Snowden gave all of his documents to Glen Greenwald and Laura Poitras when they were in Hong Kong before going to Russia. Shouldn't Switzerland be asking them for the information they seek?

Some would prefer Air Malaysia.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Some would prefer Air Malaysia.

Now you're down with your cheap jokes.

So you think Glen Greenwald is just going to hand them back to him?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Some would prefer Air Malaysia.

Now you're down with your cheap jokes.

That wasn't cheap, Walter...

...it was free

Frank Apisa wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Some would prefer Air Malaysia.

Now you're down with your cheap jokes.

That wasn't cheap, Walter...

...it was free

I don't get jokes related to terrible incidents/accidents with hundreds of dead passengers.

So you think Glen Greenwald is just going to hand them back to him?

There is a lot you don't get, Walter.

Sounds like something you should take up with the Chaplain.

If Snowden tells so, he hands the related over to the Swiss authorities

One thing I agree with Bill about, if Snowden is charged, Glen Greenwald should be charged also for being in possession of stolen property. Kind of like Pawn brokers or fences and stolen jewelry and what not.

Theft of government material is one of the three charges brought against Snowden, but it would be unheard of for it to be applied to journalists who handled the same material since they are ordinarily protected under the first amendment for “reporting true, newsworthy information”.

Greenwald has been making a lot of money off of these documents,

Quote:

I don't get jokes related to terrible incidents/accidents with hundreds of dead passengers.

There is a lot you don't get, Walter.

but it would be unheard of for it to be applied to journalists who handled the same material since they are ordinarily protected under the first amendment for “reporting true, newsworthy information”.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40653249/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/t/us-v-wikileaks-espionage-first-amendment/#.VBIzfsJdVNg


Stephen I. Vladeck, law professor, American University: Legally, at least, I don’t think it matters whether or not Assange is a journalist or WikiLeaks is a news organization.
The Supreme Court has long resisted the invitation to recognize special constitutional protections for journalists, at least largely because it is so difficult to draw the line between the “mainstream media” and those private citizens who seek to publish information through other means, including blogs, Twitter feeds, or, if they still exist, pamphlets. In that sense, Assange may not be that different from The New York Times or other media outlets that have republished the cables. (Indeed, this will surely be one of his arguments.)
And I think this point goes a long way to explaining why this case is potentially so momentous. Although the U.S. government has never prosecuted a reporter or a newspaper for publishing classified information, the text of the Espionage Act would seem to permit such a prosecution, and several of the Supreme Court justices who decided the Pentagon Papers case in 1971 specifically suggested that The Times and The Washington Post could be prosecuted after the fact for publishing the Pentagon Papers, even while ruling that they couldn’t be enjoined from publication.
So the real question is whether any prosecution of Assange would set a dangerous precedent for potential future prosecutions of the press, or whether the government would rely upon a novel theory that draws a clearer distinction between what Assange did here and what any number of newspapers have done both recently and in the past.