Snowdon is a dummy

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Is one of those parts that cannot be amended or changed...the part that the German intelligence community violated?

So much for what can and cannot be done, Walter.

Articles 1 and 20 stay "for ever".
Article 1 is relevant here, since it's about "human dignity" and "human rights".
And then Article 1 says:

Quote:

(3) The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly applicable law.

Which brings us to one of those basic rights in Article 10: "Privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications"

I had mentioned the relevant passage already above:

Quote:

(Article 10)
2) Restrictions may be ordered only pursuant to a law. If the restriction serves to protect the free democratic basic order or the existence or security of the Federation or of a Land, the law may provide that the person affected shall not be informed of the restriction and that recourse to the courts shall be replaced by a review of the case by agencies and auxiliary agencies appointed by the legislature.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

What is your point, Walter?

So you have laws that proscribe certain actions.

We do also.

And people break those laws all the time.

If laws were the answer, we'd certainly have laws against hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis.

Government is charged not only with upholding laws...it is charged with protecting the state and its citizens...and luckily, there are people who put their lives on the line in order to protect people who bitch and piss and moan rather than show gratitude.

Just sayin'.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Well, you posted similar quite a few times.

I do have a different opinion about how laws are made and why. Might be that studying at law school made my biased.

Besides that, our Basic Law isn't a 'law' as are other "laws" but our constitution.
And according to our constitution, it's not our government which is protecting it (would turn my understanding of a democratic country upside down) but our Federal Constitutional Court.
And we got it the way we have it now for 65 due our history, which we don't want to have again.
So even our governments try it during the four years they are in power ... and those "bitches" do try it ... they can't circumvent the constitution. Or the "laws" as you call it.

0 Replies

I

Quote:

n an informal question-and-answer session with Tully Center Executive Director Roy Gutterman, Rusbridger talked about his dealings with Snowden, the changing world of journalism and the challenges facing a free press.

Source: Edward Snowden, spying on citizens and freedom of the press: A conversation with Alan Rusbridger, with links.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

What do you make of the article? Is there something new or an insight previously missed?

You make much of laws. So I'm wondering, do you believe Snowden broke the law of the country he is a citizen of? If you do, do you believe the US has the right to try him in our criminal justice system with the laws that are currently on our books according to the constitution of our country?

For me the bottom line is this and always has been. If anyone can decide on their own, to steal property from the government or a private company or personal house for reasons that are justified for them, then anything can be justified. There would be no reason to have national security if anyone can decide to steal and publish the files because they feel justified in doing so.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

What do you make of the article? Is there something new or an insight previously missed?

I think, it answers some of the questions you posed before. (And confirms some of the responses, you've already got.)

revelette2 wrote:

You make much of laws. So I'm wondering, do you believe Snowden broke the law of the country he is a citizen of? If you do, do you believe the US has the right to try him in our criminal justice system with the laws that are currently on our books according to the constitution of our country?

I'm sure that he broke the law - actually, I wonder who that ever questioned.
And 'yes', I do think that he can be trialled according to the current laws.
(That's what he thinks/thought as well: the reason why he searched for asylum. And the reason why he got it - otherwise it would have been totally impossible.)

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Quote:

do you believe Snowden broke the law of the country he is a citizen of?

There is no question in anyone mind that I know of that he broke the laws of the US however just like the brave men and women that ran the so call underground railroad before 1861 to get slaves to freedom he had every damn moral right to break those laws in the manner he did.

To me if he is would ever find himself facing a trial in the US he and his lawyers should be allow to mount a defense of necessity and he should be found not guilt under that defense.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Thank you for answering my questions. Wasn't interested in others just now.

Quote:

And 'yes', I do think that he can be trialled according to the current laws.
(That's what he thinks/thought as well: the reason why he searched for asylum. And the reason why he got it - otherwise it would have been totally impossible.)

So, Snowden qualified for asylum because our laws and constitution does not allow him to defend himself?

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

So, Snowden qualified for asylum because our laws and constitution does not allow him to defend himself?

Probably in it had been so in Russia, I don't know.
But generally, "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." (The fear of persecution must be on protected grounds. Protected grounds include race, caste, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership and/or participation in any particular social group or social activities - that's why just now a 17-years old Russian has asked for asylum in the USA ... and that besides that he qualifies as "child".)

We get more than 1/3 more asylum per year here in Germany than the USA gets (135,000 alone this year until now). The reasons are various ... and it can last years until a final decision is made. ( A U.S. Army Specialist and deserter who applied for asylum in Germany on November 26, 2008 is still waiting for it since the administrational court referred the decision to the European Court of Justice last year.)

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Those of us who believe in the Constitution believe as you do that Snowden should be provided a fair trial, but we cannot assume he will be found not guilty. No legal system works to the benefit of what we deem as the best result, because humans are not perfect determiners of right and wrong.

Each jury member has their own bias that will influence the final verdict. That's one reason good attorneys tries to select the jury member that leans towards their goal of innocent or guilty during the jury selection process.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

CI the Federal court system, unlike some states courts also do not support the concept of jury nullification however if I was on such a jury where someone is being trial for morally correct actions but perhaps not legally correct actions I would do my best to convict my fellow jurors to employ the right of jury nullification.

Still if I was Mr. Snowden I would do what Mr Surratt did after the President Lincoln assassination and keep away from the US as there is little question if Surratt had not done so he would had been hung right by his mother instead of being found innocent by a civil jury years later.

Let the passions died down for at least a few years or even a few decades.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

But generally, "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." (The fear of persecution must be on protected grounds. Protected grounds include race, caste, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership and/or participation in any particular social group or social activities -

I am still not sure which of the guidelines of asylum you listed Snowden would fall under considering he didn't just voice or write a political opinion, but committed theft of government property and gave it to unauthorized persons. Perhaps that is why not too many countries' governments are offering him asylum rather than just being scared of the US. Unless countries' regularly give people who commit those kinds of crimes against their government asylum in other countries?

2 Replies

@revelette2,

The problem with your stance on Snowden is the assumption that only Snowden committed crimes without understanding the crimes of our country against other countries and humans.

Crimes against humanity by the US is worse than what our country determines is a crime committed by Snowden who according to our laws deserves to be executed. If any comparison can be made, Snowden is a saint; he killed no one but revealed the crimes of our government.

From Wiki.

Quote:

United States[edit]
Robert Henry Best, convicted of treason on April 16, 1948 and served a life sentence.
John Brown, convicted of treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1859 and executed for attempting to organize armed resistance to slavery.
Iva Toguri D'Aquino, who is frequently identified with "Tokyo Rose" convicted 1949. Subsequently pardoned by President Gerald Ford.
Governor Thomas Dorr 1844, convicted of treason against the state of Rhode Island; see Dorr Rebellion; released in 1845; civil rights restored in 1851; verdict annulled in 1854.
Mildred Gillars, also known as "Axis Sally", convicted of treason on March 8, 1949; served 12 years of a 10- to 30-year prison sentence.
Herbert Hans Haupt, German-born naturalized U.S. citizen, was convicted of treason in 1942 and executed after being named as a German spy by fellow German spies defecting to the United States.
Tomoya Kawakita, sentenced to death for treason in 1952, but eventually released by President John F. Kennedy to be deported to Japan.
Martin James Monti, United States Army Air Forces pilot, convicted of treason for defecting to the Waffen SS in 1944. He was paroled in 1960.
William Bruce Mumford, convicted of treason and hanged in 1862 for tearing down a United States flag during the American Civil War.
Aaron Dwight Stevens, took part in John Brown's raid and was executed in 1860 for treason against Virginia.
Mary Surratt, Lewis Powell, David Herold, and George Atzerodt, all convicted by military tribunal and hanged on July 7, 1865 for treason and conspiracy related to the Lincoln assassination.
Samuel Mudd, convicted with the above, pardoned by President Andrew Johnson after assisting in the containment of a yellow fever outbreak.
Philip Vigol and John Mitchell, convicted of treason and sentenced to hanging; pardoned by George Washington; see Whiskey Rebellion.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Perhaps that is why not too many countries' governments are offering him asylum rather than just being scared of the US. Unless countries' regularly give people who commit those kinds of crimes against their government asylum in other countries?

Countries grant asylum for various reasons - some take dictators, other thefts.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

So some countries take asylum seekers who have stolen from their government? OK. I am curious of what would be a reason they would not take an asylum seeker, but never mind, kind of a rhetorical question.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

So some countries take asylum seekers who have stolen from their government?

The USA does so (as many other countries, too) - they even granted political asylum for a Swiss national .... and for his family via a private law passed especifically for them. [Christoph Meliand his family. - As said before, most European criminal codes don't differ between stealing something from a private, a company or the government.]
Mosab Hassan Yousef, an Israeli spy, got asylum in the USA in 2010.
Cuba's former Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ricardo Alarcón, got asylum on the very moment he arrived in Miami.

I don't know, if any of them stole something or had knowledge about government secrets.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

I don't know, if any of them stole something or had knowledge about government secrets.

Well, you are not really responsible for looking stuff up from me, but that is kind of what I wanted to know.

In any event, what if instead of being arrested that fellow who worked for Germany's intelligence who passed information to the US intelligence agents, sought asylum in the US. Would you think that was a good thing if the US granted it? I do not think the US would risk the relations in Germany to grant it, but there is really not much difference technically. I am not saying we never have, we just wouldn't now given the state of the world with the various serious problems.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

Even if the USA granted asylum for him - he's still here, remanded in custody.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Which is why I said, "what if."

Anyway, moving on, what is the status of the Snowden/investigation in Germany coming? Any new developments?

2 Replies

@revelette2,

Quote:

In any event, what if instead of being arrested that fellow who worked for Germany's intelligence who passed information to the US intelligence agents, sought asylum in the US. Would you think that was a good thing if the US granted it?

Hi Revelette, just popping in briefly. Saw your post and decided to respond.

When Jewish-American born, Jonathan Pollard, was caught spying for Israel, he immediately ran to the Israeli embassy, seeking asylum. The Israeli government turned him away; the damage which could have been done between Israel and the US government at the time was far too great to grant Pollard sanctuary, and the Israeli government claimed they did not know the traitor.

Later on, the Israeli government approached various US governments (including Bill Clinton at the time of his affair with Monica Lewinsky) to get the the Benedict Arnold released. It is speculated Clinton was being blackmailed by Mossad regarding his affair with Lewinsky, and that's why he asked to see Pollard's file with the possibility of having the Pollard thief released; however, the damaged caused by Pollard was so extraordinary that the Defense Secretary, the CIA chief, the State Department collectively said they would resign if President Bill Clinton allowed Pollard to be released.

It's not too difficult to believe the US would disown the German traitor, pretending it did not know what was going on, but who knows......

Later......

0 Replies

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know