Snowden's Constitution vs Obama's Constitution

from the constitutional-analysis dept

Edward Snowden is not a constitutional lawyer. But his public statement explaining his decision to blow the whistle on what he and Congress both know to be only the "tip of the iceberg" of state snooping secrets expresses a belief in the meaning of the Constitution: in a democracy, the people – not his defense contractor employers or the government that hires them - should ultimately determine whether mass surveillance interfering with everyone's privacy is reasonable.

Some have tried to minimize the import of the snooping exposed by Snowden on the grounds that the government is just storing the information it gathers, and has not yet searched it. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures." Seizure – the taking of private information – is what the government has now been forced to admit in its decision to prosecute Snowden for telling the truth about their secret seizures. Whether or not the state ever chooses to "search" the seized information, the universal, non-consensual seizure itself of what used to be called "pen register" data grossly invades individual privacy and vastly empowers government, all in violation of the Constitution if "unreasonable."

The Supreme Court reads the Fourth Amendment's "unreasonable" test to mean not "objectively reasonable," United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922 (1984). This would mean "reasonable" as viewed by ordinary citizens - like Snowden. The Fourth Amendment is a unique exception to the Constitution's general choice of representative democracy ("a Republican Form of Government," Art. IV, §4) over direct democracy. The term "reasonable" appears nowhere in the Constitution except in the Fourth Amendment, although it is a concept well-known to law. For example, legal negligence is a breach of what a jury determines a "reasonable man" would do in the same circumstances. A similar standard has been imported into Fourth Amendment determinations. The Supreme Court long ago said that "probable cause for a search exists when the facts and circumstances within the police officer's knowledge provide a reasonably trustworthy basis for a man of reasonable caution to believe that a criminal offense has been committed or is about to take place." Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). So what the public deems reasonable is what the Constitution means by reasonable. Though public opinion is always relevant to interpretations of the Constitution, this is the only context where the Constitution directly assigns to the people the power to determine what the Constitution means.

By definition, the people cannot deem to be "reasonable" what they do not know about. Snowden uniquely did know. So like a digital era Paul Revere he decided to share his knowledge with his fellow citizens to test his hypothesis that they would not consider dragnet surveillance of their private electronic communications any more reasonable than he did, and like him, as citizens, they might choose to act upon that knowledge.

A strong case can be made that Snowden is right. Hence there is no need for him, or his supporters, to concede that he has broken any law. According to the Supreme Court, "it remains a cardinal principle that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment -- subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions." California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991) (quoting Katz v. U.S.)

The scope and duration of the seizures revealed by Snowden make them inherently non-judicial in nature, as discussed below. Any exception to the Fourth Amendment's "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" in the absence of showing individualized probable cause – or even reasonable suspicion – that a crime is being or will imminently be committed places it well outside the judicial process. This imposes a heavy burden on the state to prove that its search was otherwise “reasonable,” and not a breach of the Fourth Amendment's “bulwark against police practices that prevail in totalitarian regimes.” (id. Stevens, J. dissenting).

According to the Snowden revelations the Obama administration has violated this rule. A valid warrant could not have been issued under this rule when no reasonable person could possibly believe, no matter how much irrational fear the state and its propagandists are able to drum up, that universal crime by the general public, or by Verizon subscribers in particular, has been committed or is about to take place.

The state's burden of proving reasonableness is more difficult to carry in that the Constitution was designed to prohibit in every conceivable way known to its framers just the kind of authoritarian intrusion by central government on autonomous self-governing citizens that the Bush and Obama administrations' power-grabbing, privacy-invading nationwide snooping on innocent citizens represents. At least three constitutional protections against tyranny in addition to the Fourth Amendment reasonableness requirement should also invalidate such encroachments.

  1. In his Federalist #47, James Madison explained the separation of powers principle: “The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands ... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” The dual sovereignty of the federal system was intended to further divide those separated powers between what is truly of national concern and what is of only local concern. "By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. "Bond v. United States,131 S. Ct. 2355, 2365 (2011) (Kennedy, J., for unanimous Court ).

    1. The question as to separation of powers is: which branch of the state, if any, can be trusted to accurately discern and express the judgment of the people as to the Fourth Amendment reasonableness of a permanent and universal regime of search and seizure of private communications? Since the subject restrained by the Fourth Amendment is the state acting in its executive capacity, the contours of the restraint on executive powers cannot be left to the subjective determination of the executive branch itself. Allowing the executive branch to decide the reasonableness of its own actions would defeat the purpose of the Fourth Amendment. Hence the views of Obama, his prosecutors, military, and spies are all irrelevant to this determination. They stand accused of violating the rule of reasonableness which, not them, but the people must decide.

      The judicial power under Article III of the Constitution extends only to the application of law in individual cases. Like stories, cases have a beginning, a middle and an end. The state does not have the power to initiate and courts do not have the power to hear a never-ending case against the whole population of the United States, or even against the subset of all the customers of Verizon. Only a police state with its secret tribunals takes such an adversarial posture against its own people. Where the government diffusely suspects and secretly snoops on the whole people, in a democracy, it is the government itself that proves itself illegitimate, unrepresentative, unreasonable, and in violation of its oath to support the Constitution.

      The power to make rules that affect everyone into the indefinite future is inherently a legislative and not a judicial power. An unelected “court” that violates the separation of powers by exercising legislative powers in order to make new rules empowering the executive in secret collaboration between the two separate branches is the very definition of tyranny, in Madison's terms. Having a judge authorize an act does not turn that authorization into a “judicial process” as required by Katz. No judge or magistrate, let alone one judge of a multi-judge tribunal, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly acting in secret even from her own secret FISA court, can exercise Article III judicial authority, let alone collaborate with Article II executive power, to decree a universal and unending search or seizure of private communications. Any such unlimited “search and seizure” of persons who are not even suspects takes place inherently “outside the judicial process” of cases. As stated in Acevedo and Katz quoted above, it is therefore presumed “per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”

      A legislature authentically representative of the people might determine that such a generalized search is a reasonable and necessary exception to this per se rule under some “specifically established and well-delineated” circumstance “that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable,'" Katz (Harlan, J, at 361). That has obviously not been done. Few in Congress were even aware of the scope of the snooping being conducted by the Obama administration and its strained interpretations of law. Nor were they aware of the advisory opinions from a nominal court in fact acting as a secret unelected legislature acting in secret complicity with the executive branch to circumvent constitutional norms and usurp its legislative power.

      Legislators were in any event proscribed from sharing with their constituents any knowledge they did acquire. Hence they could not represent any views of their constituents about the reasonability of secret spying which their constituents did not even know about.

    2. With respect to federalism, the general police power to define and enforce criminal law resides with the states, not the federal government. Most of what the federal government now targets as part of its domestic “war on terrorism,” which it invokes to justify universal snooping, in fact constitutes the local common law crimes traditionally described as “riot” or “mayhem.” The federal government has no generalized power to enforce state criminal law or make its own. There is no general power given the federal government in the Constitution to “fight terror,” which is a tactic. The government therefore has an initial burden to prove that its invasion of the privacy of every target of its dragnet surveillance program was “necessary and proper” to enforce some specific federal power that is enumerated in the Constitution.

      This proof has been alleged but, if it exists at all, it remains hidden under a blanket assertion of state secrecy. What the people can see before their own eyes is the most expensive security state in the history of the world incompetent to prevent, except for those attempts resulting primarily from the state's own entrapments, several atrocious domestic crimes having varying degrees of international provenance. If spying actually did prevent other attempted crimes, as alleged, then where are the attempt indictments and prosecutions to prove it?

  2. Since the “war” against terrorism is not a war in any traditional meaning of the term, but rather law enforcement by military means, and the NSA is a military spy agency, the Third Amendment command that, “No solider shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house” may be dusted off for application in the information age to this extreme case of state intrusion into private homes.

    This is a time of peace in North America both because Congress has not declared war in any traditional notion of the term, and because the framer's original concept of war did not include overseas imperial adventures. The Third Amendment bespeaks war within the United States.

    Electronic communications capacity has become an inherent feature of any modern dwelling house in the United States. Yet every electronic communication originated and sent from private homes is being seized by the military. Such permanent residence by Big Brother military spies within one's private stream of communications could be seen as an updated form of unconstitutional “quartering,” the same kind of abuse of power by the military against citizens that the founders detested and prohibited, except in time of war

Aside from these constitutional restrictions on Congress from authorizing a universal spying program, and Congress's actual failure to assess and represent general public views about the reasonableness of mass spying, there is another factor that precludes Congress as it functions in the era of money in politics from representing the objective public view of Fourth Amendment reasonableness.

What makes a modern Paul Revere like Edward Snowden necessary is that even Congress itself cannot be trusted to represent the will of the people, in these corrupt times, on virtually any subject on which money speaks. Polls consistently show confidence in Congress declining to around 10%, while about 80% of voters consider the government to be illegitimate in terms of the Declaration, i.e., lacking the “consent of the governed.” Of likely voters, 69% think Congress will “break the rules” for their financial contributors. Other polls express the country's universal understanding (95%) that big money invests in politics for the large financial returns it earns by controlling government.

Such polls indicate a widespread understanding that Congress does not represent the people in any real sense. Its members and leadership are widely perceived as instead beholden to money. No politician wins office without some compromise of democratic legitimacy by dependence on plutocrats and special interest money, and certainly not a governing majority and its leadership without a lot of such money. Thus enactment of a law by Congress purporting to determine what the people think is reasonable is not necessarily a valid constitutional law that mirrors objective reasonableness.

Even aside from the lucrative government surveillance contracts that special interest money secures from Congress to subsidize “America’s last growth industry,” the plutocrats who buy enough politicians to dictate policy feel more secure when the people are stripped of their liberties. Without civil liberties, the people of the United States cannot sustain a democracy dependent upon that “consent of the governed” engraved on its foundation stone when laid in 1776. Without civil liberty, money can continue to rule by purchasing influence from its elected peddlers. In this corrupted system what the overwhelming majority of people may consider reasonable is now irrelevant to members of Congress, whether the subject is establishing effective weapon background checks or anything else opposed by the plutocrat class who pays them. See Martin Gilens, Affluence & Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America (2012). Congress can thus not reliably represent the public's view of Fourth Amendment reasonableness, even if it had tried.

What do the American people consider reasonable concerning mass surveillance? A Washington Post poll (question #8) taken after the Boston Marathon bombing suggests that most Americans with an opinion would worry that government surveillance in the name of fighting terrorism would be unreasonable (i.e. “go too far”):

“Which worries you more: that the government (will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights), or that it (will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism)?

Will not go far enough: 41%
Will go too far: 48%
Neither (vol.): 5%
No opinion: 4%

A Pew poll taken after the Snowden revelations confirmed that a similar majority finds mass surveillance unreasonable. They answered “no” by 52-45% to the straightforward question: “Should the gov't be able to monitor everyone's email to prevent possible terrorism?”  On the question of whether Snowden's NSA leak “serves the public interest” a majority with an opinion thinks it did, by 49-44%. If they “knew government had collected their data,” 63% said they “would feel their personal privacy was violated.” Of those respondents who agree with the Tea Party, 65% “Disapprove Gov't collection of telephone and internet data as part of anti-terrorism efforts.”

A TIME poll has 54% thinking Snowden did a “good thing,” in response to a neutrally phrased question: “Do you feel that the person who leaked the information about this secret program did a good thing in informing the American public or a bad thing?

A Washington Post/ABC Poll asked: “The NSA surveillance program was classified as secret, and was made public by a former government contractor named Edward Snowden. Do you support or oppose Snowden being charged with a crime for disclosing the NSA surveillance program?”

A majority having an opinion opposed prosecution 48-43%, with independents opposing even more. An overwhelming majority of 65% supported “having the U.S. Congress hold public hearings on the NSA surveillance program,” suggesting the public dismisses the claimed need for secrecy as being more important than their own privacy interests.

When such a majority, or even a substantial minority, opposes government snooping in everyone's electronic communications, that should be a conclusive indication as to whether such a search and seizure is generally viewed as unreasonable.  If reasonable people can differ on the question, then such a search and seizure cannot be held to be reasonable. “Reasonable” is what any reasonable person would accept. As one scholar recently observed, “the actual course that Internet surveillance law will take remains extremely difficult to predict.” That is because such a public consensus of reasonableness has not been reliably and formally determined and expressed. It is important for the public to step in now to resolve this uncertainty by formulating and expressing informed views on reasonableness of dragnet surveillance. The “judicial” appraisal of reasonableness that has taken place outside of public view is only a single data-point for the public to consider in reaching its own independent assessment of reasonableness.

Those who would rely upon Smith v. Maryland (1979) for a rule that pen registers are inherently exempt from the Fourth Amendment, due to the court-determined lack of public “expectation” of privacy with regard to dialed telephone numbers, ignore the Court's important proviso in that case that swallows any such firm rule based primarily on word-play. The five-judge majority held that such attributed “expectations” would not govern, and “a normative inquiry would be proper … [f]or example, if the Government were suddenly to announce on nationwide television that all homes henceforth would be subject to warrantless entry,” 442 U.S. 740-741, n. 5, which has essentially just happened, for all private digital communications purposes. &nbsp

In other words, it is not what the public cynically “expects” from a tyrannical and intrusive government that secretly evades its constitutional obligations, but what the public “normatively” considers reasonable which must govern application of the Fourth Amendment. The people are thus entitled to “expect” what they think is reasonable conduct from their government even if such conduct is not in fact forthcoming from a government demonstrably not dependent upon their opinion, and the public knows it. Otherwise, as Justice Marshall wrote, reliance on public “expectations” in the sense of factual predictions of government behavior, “would allow the government to define the scope of Fourth Amendment protections.”

Three Smith dissenters, Marshall and Brennan, expressly, and Stewart, implicitly, thought the “normative” exception should have governed the Smith case itself. Smith was a case where the pen register targeted the phone of a specific suspect of a specific crime against a known victim involving use of the telephone, the evidence of which crime was strong enough that the suspect was ultimately convicted. The Court's rationale was that Smith reasonably expected the telephone company to know the number he called, which knowledge – once shared with the police - provided evidence of his guilt.

Smith provides no support for the idea that the public would either expect or consider “normatively” reasonable the indiscriminate maintenance of pen registers for all the electronic communications of persons, the overwhelming portion of whom were not remotely suspected, let alone probably guilty, of any specific crime either involving or not involving such communications.

Justice Marshall also cogently attacked the word-play foundations of Smith by pointing out that because persons may release private information to a third party for one purpose “it does not follow that they expect this information to be made available to the public in general or the government in particular. Privacy is not a discrete commodity, possessed absolutely or not at all.“ Since the false dichotomy of expectations used by the majority is a logical fallacy and propaganda technique, the public would likely find far more reasonable the relativist view of privacy expressed by Justice Marshall that “[t]hose who disclose certain facts to a bank or phone company for a limited business purpose need not assume that this information will be released to other persons for other purposes” without a warrant.

Whether the contrary holding by the Smith majority was unreasonable is a question for the public to decide, and courts to merely discern, not dictate. For a Fourth Amendment determination of what is “unreasonable” the Supreme Court does not have the power to decree, but only mirror and reflect, the public's objective sense of reasonableness of government intrusions on their individual privacy.

The standard remedy against the state for making an unreasonable search or seizure is a damages claim against the officials involved where a jury would determine reasonableness. At the time of the Constitution this was the practice for protection of citizens from state intrusion. “An officer who searched or seized without a warrant did so at his own risk; he would be liable for trespass, including exemplary [i.e., punitive] damages, unless the jury found that his action was "reasonable.” … [T]he Framers [of the Fourth Amendment] endeavored to preserve the jury's role in regulating searches and seizures.” 500 U.S. 581-2 (Scalia. J., concurring).

A jury, properly selected and informed, can be fairly representative of, and a legitimate disinterested proxy for, informed public opinion. A civil jury is thereby institutionally capable of reflecting what society at large considers reasonable. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 48, requires a unanimous verdict of at least six jurors. Thus a fairly small minority of jurors representing a similar minority of the public can force either a compromise verdict by which alleged snooping is found unreasonable, or at least a mistrial if other jurors refuse to negotiate.

The problem with the civil justice solution contemplated by the Constitution's Seventh Amendment however is that courts have invented official immunities to protect government officials from juries. E.g. Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009). This tends to remove the question of Fourth Amendment reasonableness from the jury where the Constitution originally placed it, and delegate that decision right back to those very officials who cannot be trusted to guard the chicken-coop, and to the judges who invent defenses subversive of the Constitution in order to exempt those officials from their constitutional responsibility. Even aside from judge-made official immunities, new judge-made “standing to sue” rules prevent victims of unconstitutional secret surveillance from seeking any remedy in court without prior individualized evidence. E.g. ACLU v. NSA. Judge-made state-secret and sovereign immunity doctrines, in catch-22 fashion, block plaintiffs from getting that evidence.

The Justices on the Supreme Court appointed through an increasingly corrupt and unrepresentative political process (three justices of the Smith majority were Nixon appointees) cannot be trusted to reflect the public's objective view of what may be a reasonable sacrifice of privacy in exchange for achieving some proportionate benefit toward achieving legitimate law enforcement goals. As observed by one of the last great Supreme Court Justices, appointed just prior to the institutionalization of Nixonian corruption, in Fourth Amendment cases the “Court has become a loyal foot soldier in the Executive's fight against crime.” (Stevens, J.). The government's proportionality analysis between loss of liberty and security is difficult to take seriously when, as one comedian observes, falling furniture accidents cause more harm than the terrorism offered to justify its new erosion of liberties.

If any branch of the state were conceded the formal power to decide Fourth Amendment reasonableness in the current environment of the independence from the will of the people by all three separate branches of the state, and their corrupt dependence on the will of money, it would inevitably use that power to cancel the people's civil liberties, as it has already done in secret. The remaining public forum where the public may yet formulate and express its judgment about the reasonableness of mass surveillance purporting to target terror is a criminal jury trial.

Bradley Manning was denied his constitutional right to such a trial because of the paradoxical notion that the US Military, which is uniformly sworn “to support this Constitution” as required by Article VI (cl. 3) thereof, can operate as a Constitution-free zone in its treatment of soldiers like Manning under the false pretense that their actual sworn duty is to do anything the military determines necessary or proper for promoting “security” against shadowy “enemies.”

The Supreme Court has held that “the constitutional grant of power to Congress to regulate the armed forces … itself does not empower Congress to deprive people of trials under Bill of Rights safeguards, and we are not willing to hold that power to circumvent those safeguards should be inferred through the Necessary and Proper Clause.” So far this broad principle has been applied only to honorably discharged soldiers, Toth v Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 21-22 (1955), as well as, fortunately for Snowden, any civilian, even if tried abroad, Kinsella v. U.S. ex rel. Singleton, 361 U.S. 234 (1960), including the military's own civilian employees, like Snowden. Grisham v. Hagan, 361 U.S. 278 (1960); McElroy v. Guagliardo, 361 U.S. 281 (1960).

It remains for a soldier like Manning to expose the military's betrayal of its universal oath to support the Constitution by winning application of the Bill of Rights to at least those cases, like his, involving other than uniquely military crimes like desertion, see Dynes v. Hoover, 61 U.S. 20 How. 65 (1857), or cases not driven by the exigencies of the actual battlefield. The battlefield exception supposedly justifies the betrayal, but in fact excuses only skipping the Fifth Amendment indictment of a soldier who is “in actual service in time of War or public danger” not a Sixth Amendment trial.

Snowden, if he chooses to return to the United States to face trial or is forced to do so – notwithstanding that he has a compelling claim to political refugee status– will present a difficult target for the money-stream media to demonize, although they are trying. Unlike the case of Manning, the government must provide Snowden a public trial fully compliant with the Bill of Rights. On the evidence of his well-articulated public statements, Snowden would seem to have the makings of a good witness and, on a level playing field, a capable match for tyrants, both in and outside the courtroom.

In any Sixth Amendment criminal trial of Snowden, a profoundly important – even defining - issue will be weighed in the balance. If Snowden did catch the state massively violating its Fourth Amendment obligations in the view of even a significant minority of the public, then the interests in maintaining the secrecy of those police-state surveillance methods cannot constitutionally receive any legal support whatsoever from a justice system operating under the Constitution.  

A number even smaller than the majority that polls show generally favor Snowden would be sufficient to predictably prevent a representative jury of 12 peers from unanimously finding the state's search to be reasonable. F.R.Crim.P., R. 23, 31(d).

Obama's aspiring police-state's whole project of classifying its violations of the Constitution should then fall. Keeping his violations of the Constitution secret might be constitutionally “necessary” to carry out Obama's goals, but it is not “proper” if the surveillance state goals themselves are unreasonable. If the underlying snooping is unreasonable, the secrecy of the snooping, and the effort to punish one blowing the whistle on this secret unconstitutional project would all be a profoundly illegal abuse of power.

Snowden has a different argument that his revelation to countries who are not enemies of the United States about US hacking is also not punishable. State-sponsored hacking is increasingly seen as an act of aggression inconsistent with international law, a principle accepted by the U.S. which has also made domestic hacking a serious crime. The same rule that the state cannot enforce any law solely to keep secret and abet its own illegal conduct would apply to these revelations as well. The state must obey the law, not operate like organized crime enforcers eliminating witnesses to their crimes.

A criminal jury's independence in handling this question of reasonableness in Snowden's case would seem definitive of whether the US is a police state or still possesses sufficient civil liberties to peacefully reclaim its democracy. Surely every citizen who has information about a crime is obliged to provide that information in accordance with legal processes that comply with the Constitution. But neither pervasive government secrecy nor enduring mass surveillance is consistent with the democracy established by the U.S. Constitution. In any Snowden trial the preservation of the original constitutional protection against creation of a police state will require that a fairly impaneled and informed jury decide this question of reasonableness without interference from the state apparatus of secret courts and secret laws that belie any notion of due process.

Since the US justice system cannot be trusted, as a matter of course, to provide constitutional due process, Snowden would need to negotiate the rules of the game before consenting to face a U.S. trial. He has some strong cards to play in such negotiations, if he can stay alive. If he plays those cards 1) to draw a judge not blackmailed by or otherwise secretly dependent upon the national security state, 2) to get a fair jury impaneled, and then 3) to fairly place before that jury the question whether the government's snooping was unreasonable, he need not remain a fugitive from US injustice.

Such a trial would constitute a fair test, and a useful one, of whether Snowden was guilty of anything other than defending the Constitution in the noble spirit of '76, whether Obama and his military is guilty of impeachable wholesale violation of the Constitution, and whether the US has retained sufficient liberty that it can still be counted among the world's democracies, a status that Europe is beginning to doubt. Although if ignorant politicians and propagandists in and outside of government continue to charge Snowden with espionage, under the bizarre notion that his revelations to the US public of its government's secret violations of the Constitution amounts to intentional “adhering to [the US's] Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,” he may eventually not be able to obtain a fair trial in the US at all, due to jury panel bias.

Given the highly politicized US judiciary, Snowden is wisely playing for time and a stronger hand by first seeking justice in a political asylum process or extradition hearing, whether it would have taken place in Hong Kong or now elsewhere. Hong Kong was a good initial choice. British standards of justice there have not been entirely eradicated under its current Chinese rulers and, unlike the US, the Chinese government had no apparent axe of its own to grind in the Snowden affair.

By international standards, the US and its judiciary rank below Hong Kong on a 2012-13 rule of law index. While American propagandists routinely imply that the US system is a paragon against which all others must be measured, in fact, objectively, Hong Kong ranks #8 and #9 respectively on absence of corruption and quality of its criminal justice system, well ahead of the US's #18 and #26 rankings. The World Economic Forum – which certainly suffers no anti-US or general anti-plutocrat biases -- ranks Hong Kong #12 in its 2012-13 index on judicial independence. That is substantially higher than the appallingly low US ranking of #38 on the same index, which is proportionately not that far ahead of China's #66 ranking. If due process was his priority, Snowden was clearly no fool in choosing sanctuary in Hong Kong, though he is aware of the coercive and corrupting power that the US can and does bring to bear on virtually any country. Though China is better situated than most to resist such pressure, it appears that even China preferred not to pay the cost. Or perhaps his security could not guaranteed as effectively in Hong Kong as in Moscow, for the time being.

The paradox to be resolved is that the US justice system cannot be trusted to rein in a secrecy-obsessed and vengeful government exposed in illegal conduct as necessary to permit a fair trial to go forward under constitutional protections; but at the same time a legal process is the only means to resolve the question about the constitutionality of the government's conduct and Snowden's innocence.

As Snowden forum-shops and otherwise jousts with the US government within an international legal context, he might consider making an offer to voluntarily participate in his trial, prior to any extradition, from outside the country by telecommunication with the courtroom. Such practices for taking evidence are allowed by law and are not uncommon. Rule 43 of The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “For good cause in compelling circumstances and with appropriate safeguards, the court may permit testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmission from a different location.” Cf. F.R.Crim.P 26. Snowden's legitimate fear of returning to the US would seem good cause and his now widely followed case a compelling circumstance to use electronic means for cutting through the dilemma and allowing legal proceedings in his case to move toward some conclusion without Snowden having to trust a defective U.S. justice process to preserve his rights.

Such a digital age trial would no doubt attract a large audience, serving the ultimate purpose of educating, along with the jury, the American people – and even the world – about one of the most fundamental democratic rights.

Such an offer by Snowden could only strengthen the hand of any country who takes what his experience in China has apparently shown to be the costly act of resisting an extradition request by the U.S. The asylum country could insist that before it will entertain any extradition request, the U.S, must obtain a conviction of Snowden through such a fair “in absentia” proceeding following constitutional procedures as might be agreed by Snowden – rather than make a mere allegation that can as easily be characterized as political repression. Until then an asylum country would be justified in claiming that what Snowden did was no crime as indicated by the supportive polls indicating that it is the U.S, government, not Snowden, who has acted unreasonably and therefore illegally.

Any trial of Edward Snowden will determine how much of the 1791 Constitution remains in force in one of the great civil liberties contests in American history. The jury – and the American people – would then choose between Obama's Constitution, which insulates the state – and those who buy influence peddled by its politicians – from the consent of the governed by manipulating reality, or Snowden's Constitution which empowers an informed people to protect themselves against tyrannical state intrusions upon their liberty by “uncovering” reality. If Snowden is who he appears to be, his trial could be comparable to the celebrated John Peter Zenger Trial in colonial times. Though, as then, the judiciary presides over what amounts to a taxed-without-representation colony of an illegitimate ruling class which it serves, a fairly selected and instructed jury, supported by the people, watched by the world, could nonetheless – by standing in solidarity against that class – win a resounding victory for liberty.

Rob Hager writes on public corruption issues and is a public interest litigator who wrote and filed briefs in the Supreme Court's 2012 Montana states rights sequel to Citizens United, American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock.



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 11:51am

    Surely you don't think all this is just digital do you? That some how all communications that involve digital, cell phone, email, chat, or net browsing, is all that's being stored, eh?

    How about this little tid bit from NYT involving standard mail through the post office...

    https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of-snail-mail.html?pagewanted=all& _r=1&

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Zos (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 12:57pm

      Re:

      it's a hell of a lot harder to copy every piece of snail mail that passes through the USPS. with digital communications it's apparently not even all that expensive these days.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 11:56am

    I think the most interesting part of this is that the Republicans, who are all over non-scandals to diminish the apparent reputation of the Democrats, aren't latching onto this to rip Obama apart. Surely violation of the constitution under Obama's direction would not only cripple the Democratic party in at least the next election, but wouldn't it be grounds for impeachment? I'm not an American so I don't know the specific rules, but it would seem that violating the constitution in such a manner would be more egregious than what (Bill) Clinton got taken down for.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jay (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 12:06pm

      Re:

      Conservatives and liberals have a lot in common. Since both are neoclassical ideologies, they have to be pushed leftward similar to FDR being pushed in the 1930s.

      There's going to be a counter to all of this. There's too much steam boiling the frogs. All it needs is a spark.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Kal Zekdor (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 1:22pm

        Re: Re:

        Republicans aren't actually conservatives, that's just a rather pervasive myth. They're just liberals of a different sort. Both parties are always in favor of expanding governmental power.

        I have to point out to people sometimes that, yes, I'm a conservative, and no, I'm not a Republican.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          John Fenderson (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 1:38pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          They're not liberals, either. But then, neither are the Democrats.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Kal Zekdor (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 2:14pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I'm not sure what the original political viewpoint of a "liberal" was, but I certainly know that any modern usages of political spectrums are horribly skewed. Aside from some differences of opinion on some "key" issues (which mostly just serve to divide the country, but that's another topic), it's rather hard to tell one party apart from the other in any significant way.

            We need some serious retraction of government power. I truly believe that government which governs least, governs best. That is, if it isn't absolutely necessary for it to be done by the Federal government, it shouldn't be. Law enforcement comes to mind, such as in this article. (Not that there are no legitimate uses for government power, but every small increase needs to be researched, disclosed, vetted, voted, re-voted, and checked up on every 2 years. It should not have been this easy to gather such powers.)

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 2:27pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The best government is no government.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Jay (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 6:59pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Aside from some differences of opinion on some "key" issues (which mostly just serve to divide the country, but that's another topic), it's rather hard to tell one party apart from the other in any significant way.

              It's very important to realize that the three main neoclassical ideologies are "liberal", "libertarian", and "conservative".

              Liberals believe in more government power to regulate the market.

              Libertarians believe in social progressivism but they take a more conservative fiscal stance.

              Conservatives believe in the efficiency of the private market.

              The problem with all three is when they all eventually lead to crony capitalism compared to actual left wing economics.

              A lot of people might believe in "laissez-faire" economics based on Adam Smith's analysis but that ignores his main arguments that can equate to "Beware the capitalist" or rather the mercantilists that were his rival. It ignores that the government's main job is to protect the public.

              That can indeed work when you have a number of minority groups that coalesce to harm people. Some key examples would be the government and Civil Rights or women's rights.

              I don't agree that the government should just be small. I'd rather our government be effective, answerable to the people instead of the largest wallet.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Kal Zekdor (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 7:18pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Undoubtedly. Government is not simple. Hell, it shouldn't be. All other things being equal, a smaller government is better than a larger government.

                Laissez-faire capitalism is applying a (good) broad idea to a very narrow implementation, often with horrible results. Just look at the Robber Barons.

                Until we can eliminate (or at least seriously reduce) corruption, cronyism, and the corrosive influence of money in politics, any other "good faith" attempt to reform government would be an exercise in futility.

                The US Government hasn't been "for the people" in a long time.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Jay (profile), Jul 4th, 2013 @ 10:41am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Until we can eliminate (or at least seriously reduce) corruption, cronyism, and the corrosive influence of money in politics, any other "good faith" attempt to reform government would be an exercise in futility.

                  You can't take those away from capitalism. Gods knows Keynes tried that and he balked at actual Marxism. The thing is, Marx understood the problems of capitalism because he lived it. His ideas and theories advanced Adam Smith's incomplete knowledge of capitalism (BTW, Smith and Keynes were big in school, but didn't see the results).

                  What you see is the systemic output of the capitalist system.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2013 @ 7:23pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    But we're not living in a capitalist system and haven't been for over a century...

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      TaCktiX (profile), Jul 8th, 2013 @ 9:35am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Yes, we are. Capitalism by nature eventually consolidates into monopolies and only intelligent government regulation and destructive breakups (read: the original intention of breaking apart Standard Oil and Ma Bell) can keep that in check.

                      The problem is that government is lured by money just as much as any properly self-interested capitalist is. So instead of being the dispassionate arbitrator to stall the ultimate ends of human greed (and capitalism is harnessing human greed to society's end gain), they are enhancing it.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Gene Poole, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 2:49pm

        Re: Re:

        There's too much steam boiling the frogs. All it needs is a spark.

        O_o

        Pick a metaphor and stick with it?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Jay (profile), Jul 4th, 2013 @ 10:42am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Sorry, had too many things going on and forgot my metaphors. I think I was reading about Egypt as well as looking into our issues with surveillance.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 1:17pm

      Re:

      First of all, many of the programs were developed during the Bush-administration. There is a good reason for fearing that the heavy critizism will backfire.

      Second, republicans have a very strong support towards military resources and secret services in their DNA since they want to be painted as the "safe choice". Changing those kind of ideologically collecting stances are going to be hard for a party with very little in common between moderates, cristians and libertarians. It is therefore not a good idea to smack it down since it might increase the inner tension too much.

      Third, republicans have very strong support from secret service and military industry and personel. If they compromise on these stances, it stands to reason that they will loose a lot of money and they will also erode one of their foundations outside of their old white straight christian male demographics they cannot live off of in 30 years...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 5:52pm

      Re:

      Except that the Republicans changed the rules with the Patriot Act which nullifies whole sections of the Constitution.
      For Republicans to pursue this, they'd have to admit they created the rules Obama utilized.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Niall (profile), Jul 5th, 2013 @ 5:02am

        Re: Re:

        Since when did Republicans actually care about the hypocrisy of their positions?

        Patriot Act and massive spying? Started by Bush.

        Deaths in embassies? Massive and ignored under Bush and Clinton.

        Impeach the President? If President=Republican, lying his way into illegal and stupid wars == Free Pass. If President=Democrat, investigate over exact state of zipper or documentation - can't have 'illegal' 'immigrants' in charge of a country of 'illegal' immigrants!

        Healthcare changes? Conveniently forget their failed Presidential bidder actually put it forward previously.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous, Jul 4th, 2013 @ 12:26am

      Re:

      I suspect the average American is scared to openly, publicly, talk negatively about Mr. Obama

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 12:04pm

    there are other examples of things that go too far. the Pharma industry being, i think, a good example. it wants terms of protections for it's products of around two decades. it then wants to make the minutest of changes to then receive a further two decades of protection and prevent prices from falling as well as stopping any other company from making 'the same product' at a fraction of the price, just as is happening in India. then bring into play the various 'treaties' that the USA starts. none of these are for the benefit of anyone other than the USA

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    madasahatter (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 12:05pm

    Fourth Admendment

    Summary:

    Unless there is a reason for you to be suspect in the commission of a crime or be suspected of actively planning a crime your personal information or property can not be siezed. If there is reason for you to be a suspect then a warrant is required unless certain narrow and specific exceptions can be applied.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 1:46pm

      Re: Fourth Admendment

      all good on paper, bloody nightmare to adhere to. like searching through your laptop hard drive just because you have the wrong name. no warrant, but it's still done, and the item kept until the border people decide top give it back. you then take a chance on the condition it's in and what's missing. i defy anyone to know every single thing on any of their computers!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Hephaestus (profile), Jul 4th, 2013 @ 9:49am

      Re: Fourth Admendment

      Unless there is a reason for you to be suspect in the commission of a crime

      Didn't you get the memo? With all the laws the government has passed over the past 50 years, everyone commits 3 felonies a day.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 12:06pm

    he Republicans, who are all over non-scandals to diminish the apparent reputation of the Democrats, aren't latching onto this to rip Obama apart


    That's because it would come back to haunt them too. All this didn't get established because Obama wanted it. It got established through the Patriot Act, something that the Repubs were all over in getting passed. They have just as much fault in this as the Dems and Obama.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 12:35pm

      Re:

      yes but it could always be played down by going over how it wasn't meant for this level of expansion and that the original idea has been perverted.

      Much like congress supporters of the patriot act have said in congress.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 5th, 2013 @ 6:02pm

      Re:

      You have no idea what you are talking about do you? Read the NDAA. Obama LOVES the patriot act....thats why he didnt repeal it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Robert P (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 12:17pm

    taking/seizing?

    I don't think you can argue that copying isn't stealing and then say what the government is doing is "the taking of private information – is what the government has now been forced to admit "

    They're not taking anything, it still exists where it did originally. They're copying it. Minor distinction? Maybe, but that's the distinction you use when someone says people can't steal data.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 12:19pm

      Re: taking/seizing?

      I don't think you can argue that copying isn't stealing and then say what the government is doing is "the taking of private information – is what the government has now been forced to admit "

      I actually agree. This is a guest post, and of course, the full views do not reflect the views of us at Techdirt. In fact, I raised that exact point with Rob, but felt that the rest of the article was still quite interesting and worth thinking about.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 12:44pm

        Re: Re: taking/seizing?

        I would say you can argue that copying isn't stealing the information, but the 4th amendment issue isn't about theft. It's about loss of security in those effects which the government is forbidden from violating even if they aren't stealing it. It's the loss of security and privacy that they are stealing, not the data itself.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 1:22pm

          Re: Re: Re: taking/seizing?

          To clarify though, acquiring the information IS seizure even if it isn't theft but the problem with seizing it in 4th amendment cases doesn't necessarily have anything to do with depriving the owner of it which is what is the major with theft.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 3:15pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: taking/seizing?

            even if it isn't seizure, it's still searching and taking notes on what you saw.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jul 4th, 2013 @ 7:52am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: taking/seizing?

              Traditionally a search is performed prior to a seizure, hence the traditional focus in the language of the law on preventing unreasonable searches because due to limitations of technical capabilities, preventing the search, prevented the seizure. However, with the advancement of technology, the problem with this becomes apparent. This is what the government is trying to exploit. They are claiming that by putting the cart before the horse, so to speak, it is suddenly ok to seize then get approval to search instead of the other way around. This logic is like saying that we don't need laws prohibiting the possession of stolen property because we have laws that prohibit stealing the property in the first place as it has to be stolen before it can be in the possession of the thief.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 1:01pm

        Re: Re: taking/seizing?

        Wow, Mike. This is some of the most nonsensical "constitutional analysis" I've ever seen. The author doesn't even seem to understand the difference between a "search" and a "seizure." And that's just the tip of the iceberg. This reads like a really bad exam answer from a D- 1L law student. I'm not surprised you published it, unfortunately.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 1:11pm

          Re: Re: Re: taking/seizing?

          There are those ad homs, AJ. Right on cue.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 1:29pm

          Re: Re: Re: taking/seizing?

          Wow AJ, keep up your perfect record of not reading the article.

          Second paragraph is all about the difference between the two: "Whether or not the state ever chooses to "search" the seized information," and so on.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Ken, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 5:03pm

        Re: Re: taking/seizing?

        The major distinction that I see is the type of information. This information is private with the implied understanding that it will be kept private.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Nancy, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 10:07pm

        Re: Re: taking/seizing?

        This comment seems to presuppose that the government owns the information. It doesn't. There's nothing inconsistent in the author's argument.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Baldaur Regis (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 12:34pm

      Re: taking/seizing?

      I would urge you to consider two points implied in your question:

      Is there a difference between data meant for public distribution and data generated during the process of facilitating a private conversation?

      Can a government's use of data be equated with an individual's use of data?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 1:38pm

      Re: taking/seizing?

      They're not taking anything, it still exists where it did originally. They're copying it. Minor distinction? Maybe, but that's the distinction you use when someone says people can't steal data.

      I think that's a fair point about copying/taking. The government hasn't "taken" the data away from the telecom/tech companies. But context is everything. I think we could have a decent discussion that in regards to the violations of privacy performed by the government, and the protections of the 4th, that the government simply *having* the data without a warrant specifically for that data is the problem, not the mechanics of how the government got it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      DCX2, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 4:46pm

      Re: taking/seizing?

      FWIW, the only person who used the word "stealing" was you. The author, Mr. Hager, never once used the word "stealing".

      I think it would be hard to argue the point that the government is not taking the records or data.

      As far as seizing, I'm sure this is properly defined in law in terms of non-scarce goods. However, Google suggests the definition of seize is

      1) Take hold of suddenly and forcibly: "she jumped up and seized his arm".
      2) Capture (a place) using force.

      Neither definition implies that the thing seized was stolen. And I think there's a good argument that the government used some amount of force to make the telecom companies comply with their orders.

      I mean, I guess I can see how seize might be a bad word to use in this context, since we usually think of physical objects that were seized as no longer under their owners direct control. But the Fourth is pretty clear about banning "unreasonable searches and seizures", and the Courts have held that e.g. wiretapping is a search per the 4th Amendment.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btrussell (profile), Jul 5th, 2013 @ 8:56am

      Re: taking/seizing?

      Then I should be able to download all the data I want and not be in violation of any law unless I actually watch/listen or read. Right?

      If you publish a book, you want and expect it to be spread. If you call your wife from abroad for a little phone sex, do you expect it to be spread?

      If you can't see the difference, then you are not a reasonable person, IMO.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 12:48pm

    Uh AJ

    There you go. Argue with THAT. Or are you just going to throw in a bunch of ad homs and claim that since Mike didn't write the article that Mike isn't defending his position so this doesn't count?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 1:12pm

      Re: Uh AJ

      Holy wall of frigging text, Batman! If I want to read a 100-page essay on the Constitution, I'll to law school, not a goddamn blog.

      How's that?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 1:32pm

        Re: Re: Uh AJ

        I'll summarize for you then with perl code...

        $snowdens_constitution = $us_constitution;
        $obamas_constitution = $us_constitution;
        $obamas_constitution->{bill_of_rights} =~ s/people/government/g;

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          rapnel, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 2:04pm

          Re: Re: Re: Uh AJ

          Segmentation fault -> address violation
          duplicate hash request is conflicting
          hash not mapped
          resetting...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 12:55pm

    A very fascinating--and disturbing--article; much food for thought. Very clearly argued.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Ed Allen, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 1:20pm

    Presumed guilty

    This strikes me as what FISC judges should be forced to respond to in their whining about "doing their job" and "we are not a rubber stamp".

    They declared that the Fourth Amendment was not important in the case of this spying and now they cannot declare "we would like to explain but National Security prevents us.

    Their justification for branding us all not yet indited criminals must be stated and the reason for our children to be treated as terrorists cannot be a security threat to anybody.

    How can a judge, from a secret court or not, change the presumption of guilt and still think it is "reasonable" ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 1:40pm

    Obama's 4th amendment

    The right of the government to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    See it was Snowden that violated the Constitution not the NSA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 3:31pm

    The truly sad part of all this is that nothing is going to change, at least not for the better. Obama doesn't care what the American people think, or even what Congress thinks. He's appointed himself king and now feels that he can do what he likes, with or without congressional approval.

    You can hear it in his voice when he speaks, that he considers the rest of the government is an impediment to implementing his perfect plans for the future.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      rapnel, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 4:18pm

      Re:

      The executive has realized a back draft from pimping the legislative via contracts and capital and exposing not only the fallout of a subservient judicial, though made so via very prudent planning and calculation, but of human nature and the excess of excess. Regulation is profit driven thus the legislative achieves gridlock via prodigious financial steering fed back through regulation and legislation (that allowed to progress) and so on. We have achieved a system by design (or not) that is not only siphoning wealth but will result in the loss of liberties that could not be reattained given the current revelations and were they allowed to continue.

      All legal, sort of.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Stock, Jul 6th, 2013 @ 10:39am

      Re:

      Just look at how many times he has said "I know many people wish I could bypass Congress."

      He has it completely wrong. No one wishes for him to bypass Congress. What people want is for Congress to do their damn jobs. He has made numerous, clear impeachable and criminal offenses while holding the title of President and Congress has done absolutely nothing. As the article discusses, the Rule of Law no longer exists in the USA and thus, as a society and nation, we are on the verge of complete collapse.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    DCX2, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 4:49pm

    Specific vs general

    I find it interesting that warrants are supposed to be specific and individualized, yet the warrants approved by FISC were general warrants. This is particularly interesting when juxtaposed with the fact that, in order to prove standing, one must have an individualized and specific example of injury. But the warrant is not individualized or specific. Yet another Kafkaesque catch-22; you can't prove they're spying on you, because they don't have a warrant to spy on you, but everyone.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 5:01pm

    Now What?

    I really like this post, with the exception of the taking/seizing issue.

    The problem I have is 'Now What'?

    I don't think violent revolution is the way to go, but maybe, if nothing else works. The last two administrations Bush and Obama have some serious questions to answer with relation to their treasonous violations of the Constitution, and we all know that the next person elected President will just pardon them. This should include the treason perpetrated by persons and positions not the President.

    Congress is in the same situation. Most, but not all, of them might also be charged with treason. The failure to respect the Constitution and the rights of the people they are supposed to represent is not acceptable. Whether this duplicity is the result of the corruption embedded in the election process (money from non-constituent entities) or ideology is to some degree irrelevant. The failure of representatives to represent their constituents and respect the constitution is the point, that is the treasonous behavior.

    The Judiciary is not without fault either. The outrage expressed by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is about as humorous as the treason she perpetrated by ignoring the Constitution. The Supreme Court itself went out of their way to misinterpret the First Amendment in Citizens United. Their assumption that attempting to parse the plain words of the Constitution through seriously tortured explanations of what {they think} the founders meant is a clear demonstration of their treason, and is a continuing amusement for me, while at the same time being seriously depressing. These people should know better, which leaves us to ask ourselves 'What IS their agenda'?

    So, we might say that we should get rid of elected persons who disrespect the Constitution, but we have a bit of a disadvantage as the entire current election system is predicated upon the almighty dollar, wherever one can get it. We might say, as I have many times in the past, to remove money from politics. However, who are we going to get to initiate this? Someone who's career is politics and is currently drunk on their own 'power', and looking to get drunker? I think not. If someone does initiate it, the where are the votes to support it coming from, other drunkards?

    Then there is the issue of the Federal Judiciary, where Judges are appointed for life, with all of the detritus they bring to those offices. By detritus I mean their preconceived notions of what THEY think the law should look like, rather than following the plain text of the Constitution. Short of assassination, which I do not recommend, how are the people of the United States to get more appropriate people into these offices and/or get them to have the correct respect for the Constitution for the remainder of their terms? Trusting the elected folks to do the right thing in new appointments HAS NOT WORKED.

    Three branches of government, all corrupt for possibly a variety of reasons, but non the less corrupt. The system envisioned by the founding fathers (and mothers? come on, who really thinks their wives did not influence them, err TELL them what to think?) is not going to carry the burden. Getting an electorate whom are overly influenced by the advertising of candidates that say what they think will get them elected, rather than having principles, seems an insurmountable task. Look at Obama. Candidate Obama, treat the whistle blowers well, vs President Obama, spy on all the world and charge whistle blowers with treason. There are countless examples of such self serving behaviors, in all three branches.

    We might take direction from the 'Arab Spring' which is currently in its second year. Massive demonstrations that tend to start out peacefully, but then trend to violence either from those opposed to the point of view of the masses, or from the regime trying to maintain their power drunkenness. Maybe that's a start, I don't know.

    Everybody needs to take a helicopter ride. Get up above the forest so they can see the trees. Not too far up, just far enough to see the whole forest, but also see the individual trees. Once a proper perspective is achieved, we might get the general electorate to see the mealy mouthed doublespeak of candidates for the self serving, ego-maniacal, power hungry, flawed individuals that they are.

    But I doubt it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      rapnel, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 6:55pm

      Re: Now What?

      Now we wait.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 7:32pm

        Re: Re: Now What?

        At the risk of sounding, or actually being cynical, wait for what?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          rapnel, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 11:31pm

          Re: Re: Re: Now What?

          Wait for an effective means of correction to be identified or wait for oppression to force it. Either this is not the spark I'm looking for or the fuse is very, very long. I find it confusing that so many people are either oblivious or indifferent - or worse the "Snowden is a traitor and this is all perfectly legal" lot. I'm waiting for actions and the word play to end. I think "What can I do?" and the typical answer is "Stay out of jail." so I'm not sure what to wait for, exactly, I only know that I'm waiting, for the other shoe to drop from this increasingly grotesque and poisonous centipede.

          What I would like to see sooner rather than later is for every member of the foreign intelligence committee that was aware that the military machine harvests and stores our data be tried. I would like DHS to be dissolved and that separation of agencies be reinstated. I would like the 4th to be reinstated, copyrights all but abolished, patents reformed, the influence of dirty money on politics leashed and whirled pees. I would like to do something but I don't know what to do - apart from stay out of jail - and voting is proving to be a pathetically inadequate means of correction.

          I'm waiting for the rain.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Jul 4th, 2013 @ 7:23am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Now What?

            Nicely said, and unfortunately extremely unsatisfying, solely because this is reactive rather than proactive.

            The drought has been long, and no rain is in sight.

            On a side note, does there seem to be a correlation (not causation) between global warming and political hot hotheadedness?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jul 4th, 2013 @ 7:31am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now What?

              I think the storm is brewing. Hurricane season has just begun.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Jul 4th, 2013 @ 8:00am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now What?

                Do you recommend a particular form of cloud seeding?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jul 4th, 2013 @ 8:08am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now What?

                  The seeding you wish for has already occurred thanks to the efforts of people like Snowden and Greenwald.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Jul 4th, 2013 @ 7:58am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now What?

              Dagnabit, I really do need to fire my proofreader ("hot hotheadedness"), but my doctors tell me that neither a split personality or suicide are good things.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              rapnel, Jul 4th, 2013 @ 12:43pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now What?

              Agreed, quite unsatisfying, though, it aptly speaks to the moment in that there is something to react to, something significant, and yet there is very little in the way of a reaction. So little that it is very apparent to me that I'm on edge, I'm nervous and something is not cool.

              As far as global warming goes - I can't say that that has not crossed my own mind. I would go so far as to say that the reports of collusion between corporate and law enforcement during Occupy indicated quite clearly that a rather large and efficient monitoring mesh was in place. Someone is very, very concerned and suppression of movement and containment was very much the order. Top that with the disgustingly dismissive media, the Boston marathon town lock down, plethora of disturbing police actions, a DOJ all but completely off the ranch, overt diversion of sovereign presidential aircraft, global free reign on communications access and the signs of a "subversive" global movement is in play and we're all but guaranteed an uncomfortable future (one where liberty exists in name only). One World Order where consent of the governed is not, necessarily, required and said consent can be effectively manipulated regardless.

              My ignorant and oversimplified solution specific to the US? Combine the totals from the budgets for national defense (all inclusive, direct military, dhs, doj etc.), depts of health (medicares etc.) and the dept of education and take that dollar amount and split it three ways exactly - one slice each to defense, health and education. Voila: security in perpetuity. And then all the subcontracting MIC mofo's can eat a dick.

              Oh and copyright manipulation of the wire needs to die though not necessarily as violently as the military industrial complex.

              What have I missed? A rain dance.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            author, Jul 5th, 2013 @ 6:42pm

            This is Now What?

            http://www.opednews.com/articles/Single-Issue-Voting-A-Tho-by-George-Flower-130405-781.html

            This article describes what to do, which requires no waiting at all - and is the only strategy that can work

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 4th, 2013 @ 8:10am

        Re: Re: Now What?

        Good things come to those who wait... or so I have been told.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Jul 4th, 2013 @ 10:06am

          Re: Re: Re: Now What?

          One could argue that we have been waiting since January 17, 1961, when then President Eisenhower warned the world of the emerging existence of the "Military Industrial Complex".

          Whether through apathy, denial, disinterest, all of the above, or something more we seem to have been waiting for a bit over 52 years now.

          How long is patience?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      author, Jul 5th, 2013 @ 6:47pm

      Re: Now What?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Y, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 11:44pm

    Representative jury

    It shouldn't be too hard for the gov to make a jury pool using this nice collection of data. Or maybe I'm just too cynical.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Paul Keating, Jul 4th, 2013 @ 3:59am

    Obama in Africa

    How does Obama's persecution of Snowden match with his comments about Mandela when visiting Mandela's cell in So. Africa?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    The Real Michael, Jul 4th, 2013 @ 5:17am

    I was reading this article with interest up until the author began bringing polls into the equation. I don't trust anything to do with polls.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 4th, 2013 @ 7:10am

      Re:

      Polls can be used well or can be used poorly and often times it's the latter. However, I think it is interesting how and why he uses them. First off, he doesn't just cite one poll but rather several that were conducted by independent third parties. Also, the key point here is that the burden of proof for justifying the reasonableness of the seizure AS WELL AS the search is on the government PRIOR to searching AND/OR seizing. Because they kept it all secret, they AUTOMATICALLY fail to meet that burden even without the polling data. The polling data merely adds weight to the argument that it not only did they fail to prove it was reasonable, evidence exists to suggest that it indeed meets qualifies as UNREASONABLE.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        The Real Michael, Jul 4th, 2013 @ 10:38am

        Re: Re:

        It is unreasonable, no question, and we shouldn't need a poll to verify what ought to be common sense. Polls are most often a manipulation tool meant to persuade undecided persons to pick a side. Our Constitutional rights should not be up for debate!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jul 5th, 2013 @ 7:26am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I agree. I was merely pointing out that his argument is solid even without the use of the polls. The polls just add to it.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    OldCurmudgeon (profile), Jul 4th, 2013 @ 8:20am

    If this were two questions.

    Consider separating this issue into two simple questions.

    1. Should this data be collected?

    Even though this sounds like a horrifying step towards big brotherhood, the presence of the data in an accessible form makes a great deal of sense in law enforcement.

    2. Should the government do the collecting?

    If no (and I think that is the only answer to this question) then surely the logical conclusion is a) a private company should "buy" the data from Verizon et. al. and b) said company should "sell" (on production of a court order) the results of a search.

    This not only solves the problem but imparts financial controls over abuse.

    The fact that the data is in private hands, is not accessible in any way other than through searches accompanied by a dollar charge AND a court order should mollify most arguments.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 4th, 2013 @ 8:56am

      Re: If this were two questions.

      Both of those questions were answered by the 4th amendment to the Constitution.

      As far as privatizing the collection and allowing the collector to sell the data to the government, that is an absolutely HORRIBLE idea. Allowing the sale of the citizens' privacy to ANYONE without their consent is inviting abuse. We have enough problems with corporate money corrupting government without inviting more of it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    OldCurmudgeon (profile), Jul 4th, 2013 @ 9:23am

    Re: If this were two questions.

    At least in private hands it would definitely be under the rule of law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 4th, 2013 @ 9:55am

      Re: Re: If this were two questions.

      It already is under the rule of law. The problem is that they are ignoring the rule of law.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rob Hager, Jul 5th, 2013 @ 3:46pm

    Edits - from author

    Thanks to all for the valuable feedback. I was particularly impressed with Mike's ability to forecast the problem with the handling of the "seizure" issue. With benefit of feedback her on this issue I decided to edit that paragraph as appear in quotes below. This may satisfy some, and for others I hope it will at least sharpen up the parameters for discussion. Many thanks again for readers' response to the article and to Mike for editing and techdirt for publishing it.

    NEW TEXT:
    "Some, like President Obama, have tried to minimize the import of the snooping exposed by Snowden on the grounds that the government is just storing the information it gathers, and has not yet searched it. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Seizure – the taking of private information, “taking” in the sense of taking a picture, i.e., collecting evidence – is what the government has now been forced to admit in its decision to prosecute Snowden for telling the truth about their secret seizures.

    The Fourth Amendment is not an anti-theft or burglary law. It was intended specifically to prevent the government from collecting evidence of crime from the zone of privacy necessary to sustain a degree of personal sovereignty beyond the power of government to invade without good reason. Totalitarian governments deny this zone of personal sovereignty because they know it is the location from which democratic action originates to challenge tyranny.

    The fact that the individual lost only intangible privacy but not any tangible thing by government interception of a private data stream is therefore irrelevant to the purpose of the Fourth Amendment. What is relevant is that the government now possesses, is “seized” of, evidence that it did not have before it was illegally acquired. Whether or not the state ever chooses to “search” the seized information, the universal, non-consensual seizure itself of what used to be called “pen register” data grossly invades individual privacy and vastly empowers government, all in violation of the Constitution if “unreasonable.”

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jim Bee (profile), Sep 19th, 2013 @ 12:40pm

    Snowden and the Constitution

    A great book on the U.S. Constitution has been put out by somebody writing under the ironic pen name of "Edward James Snowden":

    http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Know-about-Constitution-Wrong/dp/1492364843

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This