International News
See other International News Articles
Title: The Very Book The Government Does Not Want You To Read Just Went #1 In The World
Source:
Collective Evolution
URL Source: https://www.collective-evolution.co ... read-just-went-1-in-the-world/
Published: Sep 18, 2019
Author: Arjun Walia
Post Date: 2019-09-20 07:27:10 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 14122
Comments: 88
Edward Snowden recently released a book titled "Permanent Record." The US government is now suing the publisher of the book for not giving the CIA and the NSA a chance to erase classified details from the book. What is the government really protecting? Are they protecting the well being of the citizenry or are they protecting immoral, unethical, political, corporate and elitist interests? George Orwell’s 1984 is a classic book depicting a populace ruled by a political regime that persecutes individualism and independent critical thinking as “thoughtcrimes” that must be enforced by the “thought police.” This party seeks power above all, and, through the propagandist Ministry of Truth, presents the people with their version of truth and casts away all other information and opinion. Sound familiar? This is exactly what’s happening today right in front of our eyes. The “ministry of truth” comes in the form, at least on social media, as FakeNews watchdogs. These are entities that are flagging information that threatens corporate and political interests and labels it as “fake news” when a lot of it, is in fact, the complete opposite. Since when does an authoritative entity like the government have to step in and decide for the people what is real and what is not? Are people not capable of examining sources and determining this for themselves? These fake news watchdogs have some interesting sponsors. One of these sponsors, for example, is NewsGuard. They are funded by Clinton donors and big pharma, with ties to the CFR. You can read more about that entity here. Companies and government agencies who are threatened by information also seem to be employing an “army of bloggers, surrogates, trolls, and bots on Twitter, Facebook, and by email” (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) to try and sway discussion and brainwash people. We here at Collective Evolution have been experiencing them as well. The world knows why the hunt for Julian Assange was ongoing for so long, it’s because he leaked secrets and exposed those who keep them. He exposed the lies, corruption and deceit that represents the backbone of the Western military alliance and the American empire. He exposed, in the words of John F. Hylan, former Mayor of New York City, the “real menace of Republic”, the “invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation.” He exposes the ones “who virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes.” (source)(source) He exposed immoral and unethical actions that have no basis and justification, he is a hero. The same thing goes for National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden, who leaked classified documents regarding the scope of the US governments surveillance programs, which is and was huge. He is and was not the first, William Binney did the same, along with Thomas Drake and many others. Keep in mind that this is a global mass surveillance program. Snowden recently released a book about it, and more. In the book, Snowden goes into great detail about how he risked everything to expose the US government’s system of mass surveillance. In it, he reveals the story of his life, including how he helped to build that system and what motivated him to try to bring it down. Mass surveillance, facial recognition, etc, are justified by the national security state for the purposes of combating terrorism, for example. But, what does the connection between terrorist organizations and the US government say about these programs? If the US government itself, or factions of it, are arming these terrorists, creating them, and carrying out false flag events blaming them on terrorism in order to justify infiltration of a country for ulterior motives as well as a heightened the national security state which involves mass surveillance, this means that their justification for these programs is a complete lie. So what’s the real reason for them? This is well known, a few years ago current democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard introduced the stop arming terrorist act, which would stop the U.S. government from using taxpayer dollars to directly or indirectly support groups who are allied with and supporting terrorist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda in their war to overthrow the Syrian government. (source) As far as false flag terrorist attacks go, many believe the chemical gas attacks in Syria were orchestrated by the western military alliance in order to justify the infiltration of the country. The evidence for this is quite grand. 9/11 is another example many people believe was false flag terrorism. ‘Protecting National security’ has now become an umbrella term to justify immoral and unethical actions. Perhaps Snowden’s book sheds light on that. I have yet to read it. William Binney is a former high ranking intelligence official with the National Security Agency (NSA). He’s had quite the go, starting in 2002 when he let the public know of a system ( ‘trailblazer’) intended to analyze data carried on communication networks (like the internet). He exposed the agencies eavesdropping program and has faced harassment from the FBI, NSA and more. He has been in and out of the court room ever since he decided to resign and blow the whistle. Binney hasn’t stopped, one of the highest-level whistleblowers to ever come out of the NSA. He is now saying: “At least 80% of fibre optic cables globally go via the US, this is no accident and allows the US to view all communication coming in. At least 80% of all audio calls, not just metadata, are recorded and stored in the US. The NSA lies about what it stores. The ultimate goal of the NSA is total population control.” (source) At the end of the day, the US government suing the publisher of Snowden’s book is only bringing more attention to the truth of mass censorship and that this global elite is losing power. The more the global elite respond the way they are, with this like the mass censorship of information, alternative independent media outlets being shut down, and jailing people like Julian Assange, the more they hurt their own interests… which is inspiring for humanity as we awaken. In Brief
The Takeaway
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Pretty much. Yet we are gaslighted into the narrative, "BUT...BUT....THIS PROGRAM ONLY CONCERNS 'POTENTIAL TERRORISTS'!"* *ALL 325+ million Americans.
… “went #1 in the world” … Hmmm … It surely must be true since it says so on the Internet, but I can’t find it. So, Deckard, please show exactly where this far-reaching and momentously important event in our lifetime that you are calling to our attention actually took place and went #1 In The World: This Week's Bestsellers: September 23, 2019 WALL STREET JOURNAL-BEST SELLERS The Guardian - The 100 best books of the 21st century The Barnes & Noble® Top 100 Best Sellers list USA TODAY's Best-Selling Books list Indie Bestseller Lists for September 18, 2019 Salute,
It is number 2 on Amazon now. It is probably number one worldwide when the stats are updated. Edward Snowden an American hero.
Uh Freedom of Speech and the press little bitches.
Uh Freedom of Speech and the press little bitches. They want the proceeds from book sales given to them.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Thanks ...
Despite the absolute language of the First Amendment, wars, threats of wars, and perceived risks to national security have prompted the government to, at times, restrict freedom of speech and other First Amendment freedoms throughout U.S. history. Sedition Act is an example of a freedom restriction for the sake of national security A prime example is the legislation passed only seven years after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, in 1791. In 1798 the Federalist Congress, fearful of an impending, full-blown war with France, adopted the Sedition Act, which attempted to stifle any speech that criticized the president, who was conducting an undeclared conflict with France at sea. The Federalist Party justified the Sedition Act as a measure needed to prevent threats to national security from within the country. Other wars have seen First Amendment restrictions to protect national security interests During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus in some parts of the North, especially those that were unstable, and the Confederate government acted in a similar fashion. World War I saw the adoption of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, which led to the first Supreme Court decisions, among them Schenck v. United States (1919) and Abrams v. United States (1919), that punished political dissidents because their speech allegedly presented a clear and present danger to national security and war efforts. During World War II, the government incarcerated Japanese Americans. That war and the Cold War that followed spurred adoption of the Smith Act (making it illegal to call for the overthrow of the U.S. government), intrusive congressional investigations into personal beliefs and associations, and other efforts to suppress domestic Communism. The prolonged U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and its high death toll prompted the eruption of protests nationwide, along with efforts to suppress them. Such issues were rekindled in the aftermath of the al-Qaida attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, and the U.S. responses to those events. Periodically, the Supreme Court has examined whether the government can restrict speech to further the compelling interests of national security. In doing so, the Court has recognized that national security, as a governmental interest, does justify restrictions on First Amendment rights. In the landmark free press decision Near v. Minnesota (1931), the Court established a general rule against prior restraints on expression. However, the Court did note that the government could shut down a newspaper if it published military secrets: “No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops.” Nevertheless, the government must provide proof that national security interests really are in play—that is, the government cannot simply use national security as a blank check to sidestep constitutional challenges. In New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the majority of the Court rejected the government’s national security justifications for attempting to prevent the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, the top-secret history of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. In his concurring opinion, Justice Hugo L. Black explained that “the word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.” War on Terror led to debate over the balance of liberty and security The War on Terror that commenced after the September 11 attacks on the United States brought into focus the debate over national security and the proper balance between liberty and security. One controversy arose over certain provisions of the USA Patriot Act, which Congress passed forty-five days after the attacks, especially the widespread use by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of national security letters (NSLs) under Section 505 of the act. A national security letter is an administrative subpoena instrument used by the FBI to compel recipients of the letter to comply with requests for various data and records on the person who is the subject of the subpoena. This instrument requires no probable cause or judicial oversight. It also contains a gag order preventing recipients from even acknowledging they have received an NSL. A 2007 Department of Justice audit revealed that in 2005, 47,221 requests applicable to 18,000 people were issued. Similar numbers were posted for 2003 and 2004. "Secret evidence" is a questionable instrument used by the government in national security cases “Secret evidence” is another questionable instrument sometimes favored by the government, especially in immigration cases. In 2003 Sami al-Arian, a tenured professor of computer engineering at the University of South Florida, was arrested, based on secret evidence, for his alleged ties to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The al-Arian case caused an uproar within academia because of its free speech and free association implications as well as his termination from his academic posting. Despite the credible nature of the charges against him, several prominent academicians came to al-Arian’s defense, demanding an inquiry and reinstatement. Al-Arian was charged with seventeen separate counts, but as part of a plea agreement, he was convicted on one count of conspiracy and sentenced to nineteen months in jail beyond the fifty seven months already served. Al-Arian admitted that he had raised funds for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. "Outing" intelligence operatives is a controversial national security issue Yet another national security issue that continues to generate controversy is the published “outings” of known intelligence operatives. The best-known case is that of career Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative Philip Agee. Agee served in Latin America but became disaffected by the CIA’s role there. He left the agency in 1968, a self-avowed socialist. In the 1970s, Agee published Inside the Company in which he named over 250 operatives and assets for the CIA in Latin America. In 1974 he announced a campaign against the CIA. In response to Agee’s activities, Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig Jr. revoked Agee’s passport. Agee countered by charging that his right to criticize the government under the First Amendment had been infringed by Secretary Haig’s action. In its 7-2 decision in Haig v. Agee (1981), written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Supreme Court disagreed. Justices William J. Brennan Jr. and Thurgood Marshall dissented. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) of 1982 was drafted in the wake of the disclosures made in part by Philip Agee and the assassination of CIA Station Chief Richard Welch by the Greek terrorist group 17 November after his identity was revealed in the magazine Counter-Spy. The IIPA has been invoked twice since its passage: in the 1985 case of CIA operative Sharon Scranage, the only person convicted thus far under the IIPA, and most recently in the Valerie Plame affair. In 2003 newspaper columnist Robert Novak publicly revealed that Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a vociferous critic of the George W. Bush administration and the prewar intelligence on Iraq, was a nonofficial cover operative of the CIA. Later, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was indicted by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald under the IIPA for disclosing Plame’s name to journalists, who, in turn, disclosed her identity to the American public. On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted on four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. However, in the end he was not convicted under the IIPA. Ultimately, policy makers are responsible for maintaining the delicate balance between the First Amendment and national security—a balance with which society continues to struggle in an age of international terrorism. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1134/national-security Salute,
Edward Snowden is a hero. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Then the headline should read: The Very Book The Government Does Not Want You To Read Just Went #2 On Amazon.
Why? And now at the dawn of the Snowden revelations, many wondered – and hoped – that the U.S. intelligence community would be destroyed. It was not. It has strengthened since the opposite has happened. Despite undoubted intelligence losses, new collection barriers, and diplomatic embarrassments, the community has emerged as a stronger organization despite, indeed because of, Snowden. Snowden actually helped that agencies. He made them aware of a problem and they scrapped much and they were forced to develop and install new and much better capabilities faster than before and ever planned. Snowden’s influence has in many other ways been limited. For example, there in the rise of “smart speaker”, exemplified by Amazon’s Echo. It has left many privacy activists baffled. Why, just a few years after a global scandal involving government surveillance, would people willingly install always-on microphones in their homes? Proving they really don’t give a shit – right? With the new-found privacy conundrum prevelant by installing a device that can literally listen to everything you’re saying represents a chilling new development in the age of internet-connected things. We are still learning how Snowden helped the U.S. intelligence community. This seems like an improbable claim. Snowden compromised scores of surveillance techniques, representing billions of dollars of investments over many years. U.S. firms that secretly cooperated with government intelligence agencies stopped doing so to the extent they could, and public defiance became the business-compelled norm. Firms made encryption more readily available and easier to use, which made it harder for the U.S. government to monitor communications and access data. Many foreign governments responded with countermeasures like data localization laws, tighter privacy rules, and closer judicial scrutiny of U.S. collection practices. The Defense Department claimed that the “scope of the compromised knowledge related to US intelligence capabilities” as a result of Snowden was “staggering.” This claim is unverifiable but seems plausible in light of the breadth of and reaction to the disclosures. The intelligence losses extend beyond counterterrorism, the main context in which these issues are typically discussed. NSA collections undergird every element of U.S. national security and foreign policy—including its extensive military operations around the globe, its pervasive diplomatic engagements, and its numerous economic negotiations and initiatives. Knowledge of what an adversary or other foreign intelligence target is doing or planning gives the United States a huge advantage in its myriad international affairs, and is central pillar of American power. Such knowledge is harder to come by as a result of Snowden. Snowden forced the intelligence community out of its suboptimal and unsustainable obsession with secrecy. “Before the unauthorized disclosures, we were always conservative about discussing specifics of our collection programs, based on the truism that the more adversaries know about what we're doing, the more they can avoid our surveillance,” Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in 2013. Post-Snowden, the intelligence community operates on the principle that secrecy is not an absolute value, but one that needs to be traded off for other values, including domestic legitimacy. Snowden made it realize that, in the words of former NSA Director Michael Hayden, “although the public cannot be briefed on everything, there has to be enough out there so that the majority of the population believe what they are doing is acceptable.” Forced transparency meant that the intelligence community had to justify itself before the American people for the first time ever—about what it did in the domestic arena and abroad, about the legality of and accountability for its actions, and about its importance to U.S. national security. It had to open itself up to through scrutiny and judgment by many new institutions, including the President’s Review Group, and a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB). Initially this was a painful, even bewildering process since the intelligence community had no experience at, and thus wasn’t any good at, explaining itself. But the transparency turned out to bring many benefits. First, the intelligence community opened up. It got much better at talking to the public. And the sky did not fall. Second, the intelligence community had a good story to tell. Credible public evidence emerged that the NSA was a thoroughly accountable institution performing a vital intelligence role. “Every program was authorized and approved, and whatever one thinks of the programs, it was not a case of running amok or exceeding its authority,” said civil libertarian and Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone, a Review Group member. And the value of NSA programs were publicly revealed more extensively than ever. The PCLOB concluded that the 702 PRISM and upstream programs “played a key role in discovering and disrupting specific terrorist plots aimed at the United States and other countries.” These claims by outsiders to (and in some instances, adversary critics of) the intelligence community are significantly more credible, and legitimizing, than when the community itself makes the same sorts of claim. Third, the main criticisms of the NSA ended up having silver linings. It emerged from the Snowden documents (and further voluntary releases by the government) that the NSA sometimes had problems complying with judicial orders, usually because of the difficulty of meshing legal directives with extraordinary complex technical collection processes. And yet these embarrassments also showed that the FISA court that monitors the NSA in secret was not, as many claimed, a rubber stamp. It was, instead, an important independent check on NSA activities. As a result of Snowden, the FISA court is a much more credible institution that can and in the future will be relied upon more thoroughly to monitor expanded NSA activities in secret. Another criticism of the NSA was that its aggressive collection processes abroad did not consider the rights and interests of foreign individuals and firms. The main response was Presidential Policy Directive 28, which imposed restraints on collection abroad in the interests of non-U.S. citizens. PPD 28 does not have sharp teeth and, while it has reportedly been a pain to implement, will not likely have a material impact on U.S. collection practices. Like many post- Snowden reforms, it imposes process and oversight constraints and forces NSA to be more prudent in its collection practices. PPD-28 (along with the Judicial Redress Act, which extended Privacy Act protections to foreign citizens) has the side-benefit that the United States can now proudly and truthfully claim to have the most robust protections for non-citizens of any signals collection agency in the world. Fourth, and perhaps most surprisingly, the intelligence community has been able to maintain and strengthen the legal authorities for its collection practices. The bulk telephone metadata program was legally and on the merits the most controversial program that Snowden revealed, and the one that the NSA seemed least interested in preserving. The USA Freedom Act made some important reforms to this program—most notably, by replacing NSA collection and storage of the metadata with carrier storage of the data and by requiring more limited NSA querying of the data pursuant to court approval. And yet the NSA has ended up in a stronger position as a result. It gets access “a greater volume of call records” than before, according to the NSA general counsel, and probably at a lower cost to itself, since it no longer needs to store and organize the massive quantities of data. And even more importantly, the program has now been vetted publicly and expressly baked into the legal system, giving it a legitimacy and almost certainly a longevity that it never could have achieved in secret. The improbable preservation and strengthening of the bulk telephone metadata program—the least valuable and hardest-to-justify of the programs that Snowden revealed—is emblematic of the types of changes Snowden wrought. Few if any important intelligence collection programs have ended as a result of Snowden, and the USA Freedom Act reforms actually expanded some intelligence community authorities. The intelligence community has had to subject itself to more scrutiny and process checks, and it has had to trim its sails a bit to make its practices more proportional to the ends it seeks. But the transparency resulted in public debates that concluded that the NSA practices were in the round worth preserving. From the baseline of what almost everyone expected when the scale of Snowden’s revelations first became apparent, the intelligence community, and especially the NSA, have emerged in astonishingly good shape. The NSA is still very much in the business of aggressive signals intelligence around the globe. Its domestic legal authorities are sounder. Its value is more apparent to the American public. It is much more adept at public diplomacy. And its central and expanding role going forward—not just for signals intelligence collection, but for cybersecurity and offensive cyber operations—are secure. These are but some of the public services for which the U.S. government has Snowden to thank. Salute,
The Very Book The Government Does Not Want You To Read Just Went #2 On Amazon. They still don't want the book read and info shared, do they?
Are you able to post your own thoughts on the matter?
Why? It is said that he provided proof that the government is spying on citizens. … “provided poof” … If you didn’t already know that and needed to be “provided proof” of such actions – then the only proof provided was that you were dumber that a pile of shit. What some hoped for with Snowden’s revelations was that the U.S. intelligence community would be destroyed. It was not. Exactly the opposite has happened - It has strengthened since Edward Snowden became your American hero. Despite undoubted intelligence losses, new collection barriers, and diplomatic embarrassments, the community has now emerged as a stronger organization discounting – yes indeed and because of – Snowden. Snowden actually helped the agencies. He made them aware of a problem and they scrapped much and they were forced to develop and install new and much better capabilities faster than before and ever planned. We are being spied on better and faster today because of your American hero, Snowden. Salute,
Fixed it. You seem to love warrantless spying on ALL American citizens. Obviously you are one of those sheep who constantly bleat "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear". Those are the words of tyrants and their submissive sycophants.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Freedom of Speech is NOT a universal right. When you have a security clearance you sign documents promising you will never reveal any information you gain due to the access your clearance gives you,and agree to the punishments outlined on the papers you sign. This applies to Snowden. If you don't want to go to prison,either don't sign the papers and take the job,or stay silent. Snowden signed the papers and then went public,so now he is a whiny little bitch complaining about how "unfair" it is,just like he is some sort of spoiled 9 year old mama's boy.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
He is a whiney little bitch, ANYBODY with 2 IQ points to rub together knows the government "spies" on citizens. You don't think the Feebs didn't spy on recent German immigrants during WW-2? Hell,they put Japanese people who were born as US citizens in internment camps for the duration of the war. The ygly truth is the end result was they were protected from attack by idiot Americans for "looking like the enemy" during the war. People from Germany weren't put into containment camps because nobody could look at them and tell they were German.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
So they are cleverly keeping it out of circulation by allowing Amazon to sell it via mail order?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Fixed it. Uh … How? It’s saying the same thing with the same end results. But if you like your version better – then I am perfectly okay with it. What some hoped for with Snowden’s revelations was that the U.S. intelligence community would be destroyed. It was not. Exactly the opposite has happened - It has strengthened since Edward Snowden became your American hero. Despite undoubted intelligence losses, new collection barriers, and diplomatic embarrassments, the community has now emerged as a stronger organization discounting – yes indeed and We are being spied on better and faster Salute,
No one really knew the extent until Snowden revealed it.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. What law would that be he broke. Since congress shall make NO LAW....... There is no law.
You are mistaking the government action as a criminal action when it is a civil action. The article is misrepresents the government action as one to prevent publication. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tuesday, September 17, 2019 United States Files Civil Lawsuit against Edward Snowden for Publishing a Book in Violation of CIA and NSA Non-Disclosure Agreements The United States today filed a lawsuit against Edward Snowden, a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA), who published a book entitled Permanent Record in violation of the non-disclosure agreements he signed with both CIA and NSA. The lawsuit alleges that Snowden published his book without submitting it to the agencies for pre-publication review, in violation of his express obligations under the agreements he signed. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that Snowden has given public speeches on intelligence-related matters, also in violation of his non-disclosure agreements. The United States’ lawsuit does not seek to stop or restrict the publication or distribution of Permanent Record. Rather, under well-established Supreme Court precedent, Snepp v. United States, the government seeks to recover all proceeds earned by Snowden because of his failure to submit his publication for pre-publication review in violation of his alleged contractual and fiduciary obligations. The lawsuit also names as nominal defendants the corporate entities involved in publishing Snowden’s book. The United States is suing the publisher solely to ensure that no funds are transferred to Snowden, or at his direction, while the court resolves the United States’ claims. Snowden is currently living outside of the United States. “Edward Snowden has violated an obligation he undertook to the United States when he signed agreements as part of his employment by the CIA and as an NSA contractor,” said Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt of the Department of Justice’s Civil Division. “The United States’ ability to protect sensitive national security information depends on employees’ and contractors’ compliance with their non-disclosure agreements, including their pre-publication review obligations. This lawsuit demonstrates that the Department of Justice does not tolerate these breaches of the public’s trust. We will not permit individuals to enrich themselves, at the expense of the United States, without complying with their pre-publication review obligations.” “Intelligence information should protect our nation, not provide personal profit,” said G. Zachary Terwilliger, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. “This lawsuit will ensure that Edward Snowden receives no monetary benefits from breaching the trust placed in him.” This lawsuit is separate from the criminal charges brought against Snowden for his alleged disclosures of classified information. This lawsuit is a civil action, and based solely on Snowden’s failure to comply with the clear pre-publication review obligations included in his signed non-disclosure agreements. This matter is being handled by the Department of Justice’s Civil Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. The claims asserted by the United States are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability. Attachment(s): Component(s): Press Release Number: Updated September 17, 2019
Stop with the bullshit that “No one really knew the extent until Snowden revealed it.” Since 2001 it has been common knowledge that the government has engaged in massive, illegal dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary citizens. There were full blown press reports in late 2005. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been at the forefront in an attempt to stops it. you can even read the timelines here. News reports in December 2005 first revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been intercepting Americans’ phone calls and Internet communications. Those news reports, combined with a USA Today story in May 2006 and the statements of several members of Congress, revealed that the NSA is also receiving wholesale copies of American's telephone and other communications records. All of these surveillance activities are in violation of the privacy safeguards established by Congress and the US Constitution. https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying Salute,
It is a fact that no on knew the extent. The contract can't make him keep things that are illegal secret. Since it requires a search warrant to search someone and they aren't they are in violation. Real Americans understand that.
Snowden exposed corruption. You try your best to cover it up and put blinders on. Your premise is a false.
source It is a fact that no on[e] knew the extent. [Definition of Extent: The degree to which something happens]. NOTE – The date of Snowden’s information release was on June 5, 2013. The massive, illegal dragnet surveillance of the domestic communications and communications records of millions of ordinary Americans since at least 2001 was first reported by the press and discovered by the public in late 2005. source NOTE – The date of the MASSIVE surveillance was first discovered by the public in late 2005. [Definition of Massive: very large in size]. News reports in December 2005 first revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been intercepting Americans’ phone calls and Internet communications. Those news reports, combined with a USA Today story in May 2006 and the statements of several members of Congress, revealed that the NSA is also receiving wholesale copies of American's telephone and other communications records. [Definition of Wholesale: Done on a large scale; extensive]. source Secret government documents, [furnished by Snowden then] published by Guardian and Washington Post in 2013, confirmed – CONFIRMED – that NSA obtains full copies of everything that is carried along major domestic fiber optic cable networks. While I await that, I will continue by stating tjat I simply cannot find information to agree with your statement that “it is a fact that no on[e] knew the extent.” I find in different articles that everyone knew from press reports about the massive, wholesale, illegal dragnet surveillance since late 2005 and all that Snowden did was to confirm that on June 5, 2013. I would say that YOUR real Americans knew of the massive, wholesale, illegal dragnet surveillance – the simply did not know the amount [extent] of the sophisticated being used. Snowden did not reveal the “extent of WHAT” – since that was already known – he revealed the “extent of HOW.” And I am fully prepared to discuss with you the biggest actual revelations from Snowden’s leaks. Salute,
source Real Americans understand that. Snowden signed non-disclosure agreements [contracts] with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA) agreeing to keep ALL things there and from there SECRET – and yes, it definitely does include anything illegal. You are right In that they can’t MAKE him keep the things that are illegal secret – but they sure as hell can take him to court for violating the non- disclosure agreements [contracts] and seek a judgment against him. Which they are now doing … For on Tuesday, the US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Edward Snowden for publishing a book, Permanent Record, in violation of non-disclosure agreements he had with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA). Salute,
If you were a real American, you would know better than to even say something like this. Another nonsense online apology. You state that your "apology" is "sincere" but you immediately gaslight Stone by insisting you have no idea what you are apologizing for. This is a way to deny Stone any agency in his own judgment of the matter and to try to pretend that he can have no rational basis for his opinion (even while you are "sincerely apologizing"). Why would you apologize to anyone unless you are admitting your own error in the matter? First off, a sincere apology is one that is heartfelt, in which the wrongdoer has understood and confessed that they trampled on someone else's opinions and feelings and that they are resolved never to do that same thing again. Otherwise, apologies are simply empty meaningless words that are only used by psychopaths to manipulate others to do their will or accept their opinions or to persuade someone that their opinion is not a simple matter of right or wrong based on facts but is just one of many possible opinions on a matter that reasonable people might differ on. So spare us all these self-serving, calculating and manipulative "sincere apologies".
They are using a law for prohibit free speech. Since congress shall make no law..... It is unlawful. If that is to complicated for you then I cannot help you. You can believe some lawyer talk to obscure the truth of what the constitution actually says if you like playing games.
I didn't state it very well last night. I knew that at the time.
No, you were clear enough. Gatlin was merely "apologizing" strategically as a way to continue to try to advance his own argument that you are profoundly wrong (but you have every right to be wrong in a way so mysterious that Gatlin cannot possibly even comprehend that you might hold a reasonable fact-based opinion). Gatlin is gaslighting you with his manipulative so-called "apology". If he isn't wrong about the matter, why should he apologize at all? Why should you accept this condescending "apology" if Gatlin continues to say he doesn't understand why he is "apologizing"? This business of "I don't know what I'm sorry for but I sincerely apologize for everything" is never a sincere apology in any way. It is a way to placate an impulsive child or a vindictive hysterical woman or a senile person. Gatlin is humoring you, probing for weakness. That's all his "apology" means. It's the sort of thing a con man makes their living from.
Since congress shall make no law..... You can believe some lawyer talk … Let me see – how shall I properly express my take on this to you … I will start by saying, Yes – they are using a law to prosecute him. But they are not using a law to prohibit his free speech. They are suinging him for breach of contract. Please permit me to give you an example … Okay. Let’s say that you [A K A Stone} want to come to work for me [Gatlin] and before I hire you, I have you sign a written agreement [contact] whereby you formally and legally agree that you will never tell anyone anything about me. But after you sign that agreement [contract] and come to work for me, you learn some things about me that you want to tell everybody about. So you say to me: “I am going to tell everyone things about you.” And then you proceed to do just that. Well, after you do that – I can then sue you for breech of contract and I will not be “ using a law [to] prohibit free speech.” That, my dear friend, is as clear as I can possibly make it. And that is exactly what is happening between the DOJ and Snowden. It has nothing – ABSOLUTELY NOTHING – to do with his freedom of speech. And I close by wishing a happy Sunday morning to you. Salute,
This applies to Snowden. EVEN when the gubmint is clearly illegally VIOLATING the 4A ("unreasonable search & seizure")? To whom is an Oath made? To certain people in a rogue Gubmint? Or on behalf of the US Constitution? If you don't want to go to prison,either don't sign the papers and take the job,or stay silent. So. Break the law. Murder people. It's ok cuz, "JUST FOLLOW ORDERS", eh? Worked well in the Reich.
They apparently haven't much choice in the matter. Unless they openly assassinate him. It's not as though the reptilian global spy agencies are "cleverly" and secretly wanting Snowden's book published -- is that what you're inferring?
I have no idea. It does appear, however, that they don't want classified information released.
I concur. But additionally, they also don't like their entire operation exposed as illegal, immoral, dishonest, and abuse of authority and resources.
Okay. Let’s say that you [A K A Stone} want to come to work for me [Gatlin] and before I hire you, I have you sign a written agreement [contact] whereby you formally and legally agree that you will never tell anyone anything about me. But after you sign that agreement [contract] and come to work for me, you learn some things about me that you want to tell everybody about. Maintaining privacy about personal matters are one thing.... It's when acts and events start adversely affecting others. Would this mythical case of this written/oral contract (or oath) also necessarily exonerate you from extenuating circumstances -- like committing treason, hurting people, and committing other highly illegal, immoral acts? By demanding oaths, isn't one justifying a "Code of Honor" among thieves, rogues and scoundrels? THIS is one reason God has explicitly frowned upon taking oaths to men in Scripture. THEY become authority over God's Law.
Yep. We never would have known all that without this book.
No matter how you cut it they are using a law to silence him. No search warrants shall be issued except describing the exact place to be searched and what they are searching for with the permission a a judge. Well they don't have a warrant to listen to everyone's calls. They were breading the law. Snowden is a brave patriot for exposing the treasonous government.
You are hinting that he said what we already knew. Well if that is the case then you should shut up we already knew what he said.
Well to be honest, most people still did NOT believe Snowden's revelations -- given the MSM and goobermint tag-teaming smear of Snowden as a malcontent and rat who "jeopardized America's national security." THIS BOOK DOCUMENTS an entire operation of what was/is still an illegal, immoral, dishonest polcy and abuse by authority and resources. Q: Do you believe there is good moral standing, legal standing and reason to surveil every single American's movement and life of every America? And if so, by what Constitutional Law or common sense reason?
Yeah they don't want their confidential crimes exposed. Snowden exposed treason and the people responsible should pay the heaviest price.
They were brea[k]ing the law. Snowden is a brave patriot for exposing the treasonous government. Truth.
Where's THAT headline? Let's get those details out there into the public arena. Where are they?
Gatlin is gaslighting you with his manipulative so-called "apology". If he isn't wrong about the matter, why should he apologize at all? Why should you accept this condescending "apology" if Gatlin continues to say he doesn't understand why he is "apologizing"? This business of "I don't know what I'm sorry for but I sincerely apologize for everything" is never a sincere apology in any way. It is a way to placate an impulsive child or a vindictive hysterical woman or a senile person. Gatlin is humoring you, probing for weakness. That's all his "apology" means. It's the sort of thing a con man makes their living from. Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
Huh – you say. Well, it turns out that Rand Paul is absolutely correct. Let’s understand how that is … Paul explained how the NSA routinely and deliberately spies on Americans’ communications — listens to their calls and reads their emails — without a judicial warrant of any kind: And so they did this to President Obama. They — 1,227 times eavesdrops on President Obama’s phone calls. Then they mask him. But here is the problem. And General Hayden said this the other day. He said even low-level employees can unmask the caller. That is probably what happened to Flynn. They are not targeting Americans. They are targeting foreigners. But they are doing it purposefully to get to Americans. […] https://theintercept.com/2017/03/13/rand-paul-is-right-nsa-routinely-monitors- americans-communications-without-warrants/ Salute,
How do you know the government didn't apply for,and get a search warrant? You don't. There IS such a thing as classified search warrants.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
No,I am merely stating the obvious. The book and the classified info in it are already in the public domain,and you can't unring a bell.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
EVEN when the gubmint is clearly illegally VIOLATING the 4A ("unreasonable search & seizure")? How the HELL are they doing that? To whom is an Oath made? To certain people in a rogue Gubmint? Or on behalf of the US Constitution? To the Federal Government,and NOBODY MAKES you take the oath or sign the paper. You are free to walk away if you want. So. Break the law. Murder people. It's ok cuz, "JUST FOLLOW ORDERS", eh? Worked well in the Reich. When did you turn into a hysterical drama queen? One word for you,"Midol".
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Snowden is NOT a regular citizen whose mail is being read. He is a man that AGREED to not disclose any classified information he would gain access to after ACCEPTING a job that gave him access to classified information that could damage the security of America if it became general knowledge.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
They put a significant number of Germans in America in the same kind of internment camps for the duration of the war. Interestingly, they were kept confined longer than the Japanese were after the war ended in 1945. These were the German American Bund which is a nice name to use instead of American Nazi Party (which was later established as a party in the Fifties). A total of 11,507 people of German ancestry were interned during the war, comprising 36.1% of the total internments under the US Justice Department's Enemy Alien Control Program.[29] By contrast, an estimated 110,000–120,000 Japanese-Americans were forcibly relocated from the West Coast and incarcerated in internment camps run by the US War Department's War Relocation Authority. None of these internees was ever found guilty of a crime or proven to be a threat to national security. Those who were released back to their homes were obliged to sign a secrecy agreement regarding the time they spent in the camp. They were under threat of being returned to Germany if they breached the terms of the agreement. Staff who had worked at the camps also had to agree to secrecy. ...
I had to look that up - very apt description of Gatlin's tactics.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. I had to look that up - very apt description of Gatlin's tactics. Hmmm… Where were we? Please help me correctly understand. I think you said that “gaslighting” is a “very apt description of Gatlin’s tactics.” I am a very old man, and I sometimes don’t get things straight. Did I get that right? Well, if that be so – then I guess that my “Columbo Method” needs more practice. Obviously … Salute,
I had to look that up - very apt description of Gatlin's tactics. Hmmm… Where were we? Please help me correctly understand. I think you said that “gaslighting” is a “very apt description of Gatlin’s tactics.” I am a very old man, and I sometimes don’t get things straight. Did I get that right? Well, if that be so – then I guess I need to practice on my “Columbo Method” needs more practice Obviously … Edit: Since I am so generous this morning – I will let you in on another of my techniques. I always start my effective price negotiations with “ I am an old man on fixed income and …” Depending on the price and profit margin involved, that usually will get me five to ten percent right from the start. Then I move ever so slowly forward with a hesitantly speech pattern using a modified “dumb” Columbo Method and work towards twenty five percent in my favor. Or, as close as I can get. I do often time use the “walk away” knowing full well they need to sell more that I want to buy. I Have now shared with you, two secrets this morning. I will tell you more of my secrets. But it will cost you – dearly. Salute,
Keep your perversions to yourself freakshow.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Depending on the price and profit margin involved, that usually will get me five to ten percent right from the start. I'm a contractor and I hear that line I think hmm. I'll charge them a little more for trying to con me. They pay. lol.
So if the government wants to do something unconstitutional. They just make you sign a paper so if you find out you can't tell anyone. That's a pretty fucked up view of how things should work imo.
I know. The difference is they were recent immigrants,not citizens. 2nd and 3rd generation Japanese went into the internment camps. Nobody likes to talk about this,but the truth is the Japanese who had US citizenship should be happy about this because they had MP's protecting them from attack. I had a friend whose father enlisted in the 442nd Regimental Combat Team,a unit composed entirely of Japanese Americans,and rumored to have been the most decorated US Army unit of WW-2. His uncle left home to enlist too,but was caught and beaten by his fellow Chicago citizens on the way to the enlistment office,and spent the rest of his life wearing diapers and being spoon fed. The German Americans were lucky in that respect. The recent ones couldn't be told from any other American if they didn't have an accent or kept their mouths shut. The Japanese Americans weren't that fortunate.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
No. You obviously have never had a security clearance,and don't understand the concept. MOST military/national defense secrets are more related to not letting the enemy know what you know because if they did,it would be easier for them to track down the source in their country that supplied you with this information. There are also METHODS OF OPERATION that are secret because you don't want the enemy to know how you operate to keep them from catching and executing your agents,who may be soldiers,diplomats,embassy workers,CIA agents playing the role of tourists,etc,etc,etc. They mostly "mine" the citizens of the nation you are investigating,and those citizens are providing the intelligence and they need to be protected. In most cases if they were exposed,they would die. I used to have a Top Secret Crypto security clearance while in the army,and held a Secret security clearance at various times while working with the Army in an advisory role. The whole time I held security clearances,I did not know of ONE single damn thing or operation that was being used against America or American citizens. Never even heard rumors. Such things are under the domain of the FBI,and they are VERY jealous when it comes to guarding their secrets. Even they are overseen and kept slapped into line by their political masters. Sure,some agent or tech geek sometimes goes wrong,but when they do,the Feebs go after them like a hungry dog after a nice raw steak.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Depending on the price and profit margin involved, that usually will get me five to ten percent right from the start. I'm a contractor and I hear that line I think hmm. I'll charge them a little more for trying to con me. They pay. lol. I know there is Financial Exploitation in Aging … Salute,
Nothng personal here; Just my observation and opinion: This post & thread appears to have struck clear dividing lines of cynicism or support. The respective subjects of "911" and role of gubmint Alphabet Agencies and military (in the name of "national security") seem always to evoke polarized opinion. Why is that? (Yes, I have my own theory) The degree of support/criticism the respective two subjects receive appears to be based primarily on the fundamental trust OF Government, loyalty TO IT, and supposed function OF IT and its purported "mission" of "national Security" -- regardless of its proper role, lack of transparency, evolved political agenda, and especially, regardless of honesty, responsibility or ethics. The side from which respective relative position of support or criticism seems to be dependent on whether one has been in the employ of government or military to some major extent. That same side and perspective also appears to be determinate factor in whether one is more open and flexible to "Truther" issues, OR remains steadfast and more rigid in their respective loyalty to institutional/governmental narratives (as they present it.) What say you?
Keep your perversions to yourself freakshow. I realize that is your embarrassed way of saying that you can’t pay for them. It’s okay – I understand … Salute,
You're giving the distinct impression that you are OCD-sociopath. Maybe it's time to scale back on the hyper-ridiculousness.
You mean all 325 million of them?
Yes. In theory. Q: Since when do all 325 millions Americans warrant 24/7 surveillance? The Patriot Act and NSA -- are you familiar with both of their alleged "mission"? Are you familiar with the degree of carte blanche to which they routinely justfy and ignore the US Constitution? Are you someone who supported the absurd the airport strip-searches of gramma, nuns, and WW2 vets (See Joe Foss) while ignoring obvious suspects (see Mooses.)
Have you read the book?
YOU: How the HELL are they doing that? Do you really wonder *how* the NSA and various Alphabet Agencies are engaging in 24/7 surveillance and recording of our every PRIVATE phone and internet conversation? Or even watch our movements (via ubiquitous street cameras?) Seriously? ME: "To whom is an Oath made? To certain people in a rogue Gubmint? Or on behalf of the US Constitution?" YOU: "To the Federal Government,and NOBODY MAKES you take the oath or sign the paper. You are free to walk away if you want." Sure -- no one has a gun to the others head. But that's not the point. Any oath or signed paperwork regarding silence may indeed be mutual. These are the TWO points you missed (as well as a bonus point): 1) Illegal/rogue/immoral/unethical acts & missions may STILL be performed on behalf of these ruling overlords/commanders. WITH IMPUNITY. In complete disregard to justice OR actual security. 2) To whom does one owe allegiance? In support of US Constitution and to the citizenry (who actually pay a serviceman's salary)? OR, to a specific military/secret organization? 3) There is an obvious reason "Black Ops" is a thang. Some might consider the Coup against President Trump a less horrific JFK example. When did you turn into a hysterical drama queen? One word for you,"Midol". Hey, the "Midol" line was mine first.
Complete and utter BS. ...."damage the security of America if it [the illegal targeting & surveillance of all 325 million Americans for no good reason, having NOTHING to do with National Security] became general knowledge." FIXED.
Exactly so. He signed an NDA that did not differ substantially from the NDAs that employees sign in the private sector to keep company secrets in confidence in perpetuity unless they are released by the employer to publish something. The difference with Snowden compared to people like Stormy Daniels violating an NDA is that DoJ/NSA/CIA all have a lot of power to do something about someone violating their NDAs. Clearly, Snowden and his publisher knew the DoJ was very likely to take this action. A few of the books that were published by SEAL Team 6 members about the (alleged) Bin Laden assassination in Pakistan were subject to this but I don't think they actually sued to recover the profits. There was at least one book by a former CIA employee, maybe 5 years ago, that was threatened with a similar lawsuit. So Snowden and publisher both had cause to know that DoJ would likely take this action. According to the copyright page of the book: So the publisher is Metropolitan, one of five divisions of the big Holt publishing empire, and on their website they brag about publishing Lefty books specifically, mentioning a number of books by Chomsky. So it is a publishing house focused on Lefty books. Perfect for Snowden. Snowden and the publisher must have known the DoJ would try to seize the proceeds. So they probably put a pile of royalty money in an escrow account overseas, possibly in a Russian bank, and have an agreement beforehand with the bank to pay out or transfer a certain amount to Snowden based on officially published book sales from Metropolitan for a certain period of time. There are likely some banks in Russia who don't care about U.S. sanctions at all, given how many oligarchs and businesses are under sanctions already. America already sanctioned Sberbank, VTB, Gazprombank, Russian Agricultural Bank, and VEB and we got the EU to join in. So they have nothing to lose as far as we're concerned. I bet Snowden is getting paid, no matter what DoJ is doing. This is pretty much his only chance for a real payday for the rest of his life. We should assume that the Russkies have already pumped all the info he had from him by various means. They may not have but I think they have. It's just too valuable to them to leave him alone. Snowden has info they could not otherwise obtain or that would cost them billions in espionage costs to get. His familiarity with NSA software alone would be very valuable to them. So that is probably how he's earned his keep to stay in Russia. But he wants a nice fat bank account in Western money or cryptocurrency just in case his Russia gig ever goes south. This may be a DoJ case where they prosecute only to uphold their NDAs with all their other contractors. If they fail to pursue Snowden and can be demonstrated in court as not enforcing their NDAs to the maximum, it could impede any future claims they have to enforce their NDAs on other employees or former employees or contractors. So this may be a pro forma case, not one intended to actually stop Snowden from getting his payoff from these book sales. It's to stop the next Snowden(s) and show the courts that they are serious about enforcing their NDAs.
I'm surprised you hadn't heard it before, given the articles you post. Gaslighting has become something of a buzzword in certain circles in recent years. In truth, I should have called Gatlin's #FakeApology something like "a gaslit apology". Clearly, it was manipulative and deliberately so but it was not technically gaslighting which is used by psychopaths or con men to make a person doubt their own memory or understanding of events. But the #FakeApology does reveals that Gatlin either thinks he's a lot smarter than the rest of us or that Gatlin thinks we really are total morons. Probably the former since it is more self-flattering for Gatlin to think we are smart but that he is so much smarter in online debate tactics. If it were the latter, it isn't as much fun for Gatlin to try to play people that he considers to be morons; it's more rewarding emotionally to think you're much smarter than your devious but inferior opponents/rivals.
There's a pretty ugly suggestion there that you are exploiting and preying upon your elderly customers.
Well, the government came out with a report that concluded "this is what happened". The conspiracy theorists said "no it didn't". I'm going with the guys with the facts and figures.
The actual issue at litigation is the legal requirement for Snowden to have submitted his proposed publication to the agency, and to have obtained prior permission to publish it. As Snowden did not request permission, permission was not granted. The agency did not seek to prevent publication, but it has sought to prevent any financial income from the publication going to the benefit of Snowden. As for the government acquisition of telephone and internet information, the 4th Amendment issue is muddied in that the information, or access to the information, was generally given to the government by entities such as AT&T or Facebook, or others. AT&T facilities (located at Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.) were in partnership with the NSA. In this circumstance, it is a bit difficult to maintain that the NSA searched and seized.
Isn't that consistent with a pro forma case brought mainly to maintain the enforceability of NDAs with the feds in American courts? They won't get any money from Snowden as his Lefty publisher no doubt pre-planned for this, probably is trying to get extra PR from the feds filing the lawsuit. But the legal status of those NDAs will be maintained for anyone who remains under U.S. jurisdiction or within reach of our financial system. And that is probably the legal objective for DoJ. I've pawed through the book some. The first third of it is a personal bio of his boyhood and teenage years and getting injured so he left the service voluntarily by signing a statement that he didn't hold the military responsible for his injuries or costs. But he got the multiple security checks and polygraph exams required to qualify for top secret clearances and that is how he, without a B.A. or even an A.A. normally required for NSA/CIA work, got hired and given top secret clearance to work for them directly, later switching over to being a Dell "contractor", a cover used quite often by the intel community to hide who really works for them and who doesn't.
They won't get any money from Snowden as his Lefty publisher no doubt pre-planned for this, probably is trying to get extra PR from the feds filing the lawsuit. They do not seek money from Snowden. Snowden will get little, if any, money. The government seeks to freeze any publication income from being provided to Snowden. The publisher gets to keep their profits, but anything payable to Snowden is contested and the government prays the Court to order that it be placed in a constructive trust. There is U.S. Supreme Court precedent for this (Snepp) quoted below. There is no incentive for Macmillan to get into a pissing contest with the Federal government, or to defy a court order which is extremely likely to be forthcoming. At this nascent stage, the legal case consists of a COMPLAINT in a civil case. All COMPLAINTs consist of allegations. At 1-2: 1. The United States of America brings this civil action for breach of contract and fiduciary obligations against Defendant Edward Snowden, a United States citizen who formerly worked as a contractor and staff employee for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and was employed as a contract employee by the National Security Agency (NSA), and who published a book without submitting the manuscript for prepublication review and has given speeches without submitting the necessary materials for prepublication review, in violation of his secrecy agreements and non-disclosure obligations to the United States. As relief-defendants only, the United States also names Macmillan Publishers Inc.; Macmillan Publishing Group, LLC d/b/a Henry Holt and Company; and Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC. No independent claims are asserted herein against the relief-defendants; rather, they are named as necessary parties for purposes of according the United States complete relief in this lawsuit. Through this suit, the United States is not seeking to enjoin or restrain publication or distribution of Snowden’s book. At 6-8: 22. As a condition of employment, and under the terms of the CIA Secrecy Agreements, Snowden was required to submit to the CIA for its review any writing or other preparation in any form, including a work of fiction, that Snowden contemplates disclosing publicly or has prepared for public disclosure, that “contains any mention of intelligence data or activities” or “contains any other information or material that might be based on” information obtained during the course of his CIA employment that is classified or in the process of a classification determination. See CIA Secrecy Agreements ¶ 5. This prepublication obligation applies both during his employment or other service with CIA and at any time thereafter. See id. 23. Snowden was required to submit his material for prepublication review “prior to discussing [the work] with or showing it to anyone who is not authorized to have access to” classified information. CIA Secrecy Agreements ¶ 5. Snowden was also required not to “take any steps towards public disclosure until [he] received written permission to do so from the Central Intelligence Agency.” Id. 24. As Snowden acknowledged in the CIA Secrecy Agreements, the purpose of this prepublication review “is to give the Central Intelligence Agency an opportunity to determine whether the information or material that I contemplate disclosing publicly contains any information or material that I have agreed not to disclose.” CIA Secrecy Agreements ¶ 6. 25. Snowden acknowledged and agreed in the CIA Secrecy Agreements that the obligations undertaken by him in executing the CIA Secrecy Agreements would remain valid and binding upon him after the termination of his employment with the CIA, unless he obtained a written release from the CIA. See CIA Secrecy Agreements ¶ 13. 26. Snowden also agreed in the CIA Secrecy Agreements that all classified information acquired by him during the course of his employment was the property of the United States Government, see CIA Secrecy Agreements ¶ 7; that there were established procedures for reporting any concerns about unlawful or improper intelligence activities, id. ¶ 9; and that if he violated any of the terms of the CIA Secrecy Agreements, the Government could institute a civil proceeding seeking compensatory damages or other appropriate relief, id. ¶ 10. 27. Snowden specifically agreed that, “[i]n addition to any other remedy to which the United States Government may become entitled, I hereby assign to the United States Government all rights, title, and interest in any and all royalties, remunerations and emoluments that have resulted or will result or may result from any divulgence, publication or revelation of information or material by me that is carried out in breach of [the prepublication obligation in] paragraph 5 of this agreement or that involves information or material prohibited from disclosure by the terms of this agreement.” CIA Secrecy Agreements ¶ 12. At 23-25: A. Declare that Snowden has breached his contractual obligations, embodied in his CIA Secrecy Agreements and NSA Secrecy Agreements, as well as his fiduciary obligations; B. Impose a constructive trust for the benefit of the United States over, and require an accounting of, all monies, gains, profits, royalties, and other advantages that Snowden and his agents, assignees, or others acting on his behalf have derived, or will derive, from the publication, sale, serialization, or republication in any form, including any movie rights or other reproduction rights, of Permanent Record; C. Require Snowden and/or his agents, assignees, or others acting on his behalf to relinquish to the United States all monetary proceeds earned by them from Permanent Record; D. Impose a constructive trust for the benefit of the United States over, and require an accounting of, all monies, gains, profits, royalties, and other advantages that Snowden and his agents, assignees, or others acting on his behalf have derived, or will derive, from speeches he has given disclosing information subject to his prepublication review obligations; E. Require Snowden and/or his agents, assignees, or others acting on his behalf to relinquish to the United States all monetary proceeds earned by them from such speeches; F. To the extent that any proceeds, revenues, gains, royalties or other advantages derived from Permanent Record or his speeches are no longer in Snowden’s possession or the possession of his agents, assignees, or others acting on his behalf, award the United States monetary damages against Snowden (and/or his agents, assignees, or others acting on his behalf) for such proceeds wrongfully obtained as a result of his breaches; G. Enter a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction freezing all assets in Macmillan’s possession relating to Permanent Record that belong to Snowden or his agents, assignees, or others acting on his behalf; prohibiting transfer or encumbrance of any of those assets; and requiring production of all contracts between Macmillan and Snowden (and/or his agents, assignees, or others acting on his behalf), as well as an accounting of all proceeds earned by Permanent Record, a description of all persons and entities with financial interests relating to Permanent Record and the nature of those interests, and a description of the process of disbursing funds to Snowden (and/or his agents, assignees, or others acting on his behalf); H. Enter a permanent injunction requiring Macmillan to transfer to the United States all proceeds in Macmillan’s possession that Snowden and his agents, assignees, or others acting on his behalf have derived, or will derive, from the publication, sale, serialization, or republication in any form, including any movie rights or other reproduction rights, of Permanent Record; I. Permanently enjoin Snowden from any further violations of his contractual and fiduciary obligations, including but not limited to public speeches discussing Permanent Record; any further written works; and any additional speeches that are within the scope of his prepublication review obligations without first undertaking the prepublication review process; and J. Grant to the United States such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper, including, but not limited to, the Government’s costs herein. Dated: September 17, 2019 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PRIOR CASE LAW: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/444/507.html SNEPP v. UNITED STATES (1980) No. 78-1871 Argued: Decided: February 19, 1980 [ Footnote * ] Together with No. 79-265, United States v. Snepp, also on petition for certiorari to the same court. Held: A former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, who had agreed not to divulge classified information without authorization and not to publish any information relating to the Agency without prepublication clearance, breached a fiduciary obligation when he published a book about certain Agency activities without submitting his manuscript for prepublication review. The proceeds of his breach are impressed with a constructive trust for the benefit of the Government. Certiorari granted; 595 F.2d 926, reversed in part and remanded. PER CURIAM. In No. 78-1871, Frank W. Snepp III seeks review of a judgment enforcing an agreement that he signed when he accepted employment with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He also contends that punitive damages are an inappropriate remedy for the breach of his promise to submit all writings about the Agency for prepublication review. In No. 79-265, the United States conditionally cross petitions from a judgment refusing to find that profits attributable to Snepp's breach are impressed with a constructive trust. We grant the petitions for certiorari in order to correct the judgment from which both parties seek relief. I Based on his experiences as a CIA agent, Snepp published a book about certain CIA activities in South Vietnam. Snepp published the account without submitting it to the Agency for prepublication review. As an express condition of his employment with the CIA in 1968, however, Snepp had [444 U.S. 507, 508] executed an agreement promising that he would "not . . . publish . . . any information or material relating to the Agency, its activities or intelligence activities generally, either during or after the term of [his] employment . . . without specific prior approval by the Agency." App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 78-1871, p. 59a. The promise was an integral part of Snepp's concurrent undertaking "not to disclose any classified information relating to the Agency without proper authorization." Id., at 58a. 1 Thus, Snepp had pledged not to divulge classified information and not to publish any information without prepublication clearance. The Government brought this suit to enforce Snepp's agreement. It sought a declaration that Snepp had breached the contract, an injunction requiring Snepp to submit future writings for prepublication review, and an order imposing a constructive trust for the Government's benefit on all profits that Snepp might earn from publishing the book in violation of his fiduciary obligations to the Agency. 2 The District Court found that Snepp had "willfully, deliberately and surreptitiously breached his position of trust with the CIA and the 1968. secrecy agreement" by publishing his book without submitting it for prepublication review. 456 F. Supp. 176, 179 (ED Va. 1978). The court also found that Snepp deliberately misled CIA officials into believing that he would submit the book for prepublication clearance. Finally, the court determined as a fact that publication of the book had "caused the United States irreparable harm and loss." [444 U.S. 507, 509] Id., at 180. The District Court therefore enjoined future breaches of Snepp's agreement and imposed a constructive trust on Snepp's profits. The Court of Appeals accepted the findings of the District Court and agreed that Snepp had breached a valid contract. 3 It specifically affirmed the finding that Snepp's failure to submit his manuscript for prepublication review had inflicted "irreparable harm" on intelligence activities vital to our national security. 595 F.2d 926, 935 (CA4 1979). Thus, the court upheld the injunction against future violations of Snepp's prepublication obligation. The court, however, concluded that the record did not support imposition of a constructive trust. The conclusion rested on the court's perception [444 U.S. 507, 510] that Snepp had a First Amendment right to publish unclassified information and the Government's concession - for the purposes of this litigation - that Snepp's book divulged no classified intelligence. Id., at 935-936. 4 In other words, the court thought that Snepp's fiduciary obligation extended only to preserving the confidentiality of classified material. It therefore limited recovery to nominal damages and to the possibility of punitive damages if the Government - in a jury trial - could prove tortious conduct. [...] III The decision of the Court of Appeals denies the Government the most appropriate remedy for Snepp's acknowledge wrong. Indeed, as a practical matter, the decision may well leave the Government with no reliable deterrent against similar breaches of security. No one disputes that the actual damages attributable to a publication such as Snepp's generally are unquantifiable. Nominal damages are a hollow alternative, certain to deter no one. The punitive damages recoverable after a jury trial are speculative and unusual. Even if recovered, they may bear no relation to either the Government's irreparable loss or Snepp's unjust gain. The Government could not pursue the only remedy that the Court of Appeals left it 10 without losing the benefit of the bargain it seeks to enforce. Proof of the tortious conduct necessary to sustain an award of punitive damages might force the Government to disclose some of the very confidences that Snepp promised to protect. The trial of such a suit, before a jury if the defendant so elects, would subject the CIA and its [444 U.S. 507, 515] officials to probing discovery into the Agency's highly confidential affairs. Rarely would the Government run this risk. In a letter introduced at Snepp's trial, former CIA Director Colby noted the analogous problem in criminal cases. Existing law, he stated, "requires the revelation in open court of confirming or additional information of such a nature that the potential damage to the national security precludes prosecution." App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 78-1871, p. 68a. When the Government cannot secure its remedy without unacceptable risks, it has no remedy at all. A constructive trust, on the other hand, protects both the Government and the former agent from unwarranted risks. This remedy is the natural and customary consequence of a breach of trust. 11 It deals fairly with both parties by conforming relief to the dimensions of the wrong. If the agent secures prepublication clearance, he can publish with no fear of liability. If the agent publishes unreviewed material in violation of his fiduciary and contractual obligation, the trust remedy simply requires him to disgorge the benefits of his faithlessness. Since the remedy is swift and sure, it is tailored to deter those who would place sensitive information at risk. And since the remedy reaches only funds attributable to the [444 U.S. 507, 516] breach, it cannot saddle the former agent with exemplary damages out of all proportion to his gain. The decision of the Court of Appeals would deprive the Government of this equitable and effective means of protecting intelligence that may contribute to national security. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it refused to impose a constructive trust on Snepp's profits, and we remand the cases to the Court of Appeals for reinstatement of the full judgment of the District Court. So ordered.
Snowden and the publisher knew in advance that this would be the case, that the feds would try to confiscate the proceeds. I keep thinking that they must have had a signing bonus for Snowden and likely a final bonus for completing a book that the publisher was willing to bring to market. Maybe all of Snowden's income was front-loaded in the deal so he can't make any more money from the deal. There may also have been some sort of deal where Snowden got paid some portion of the initial first run of books prior to publication. The book apparently was for sale before the feds filed suit so Snowden had to make any money he was going to make from signing and completion bonuses and from front-loaded royalties, perhaps based solely on bookstore and Amazon pre-orders of his upcoming book. It would be interesting to know the exact details of the Snowden deal with the publisher. I remain convinced that Snowden got paid or he wouldn't have written the book at all since he could otherwise hope for some change in the future after which he could get normal author's royalties. I don't generally like NDAs but, if the feds are going to have them, they do have to enforce them even in a case where they won't get much money out of it. I see you bolded this portion concerning Snowden giving paid speeches or paid interviews about the book or anything described in it. Were you highlighting that the feds had closed off that avenue of income? Since the first third of the book is biographical and is about Snowden's upbringing until after he left boot camp, the feds are claiming he can't even discuss this biographical filler in a speech now without the feds claiming the income from it. In that sense, the federal government now owns the proceeds of any speech or writing that Snowden put in his biographical portion of the book. That bio - up to age 22 - constitutes 196 pages of a 642 page book. By including his biographical info in this book, the DoJ now has the legal rights to seize the proceeds of any further paid interviews or paid speeches or subsequent biographical writing by Snowden about his own life, before the time he ever worked for the feds. Snowden can't talk about anything in his past that he mentioned in the book and get paid for it or Uncle Sam will demand the proceeds from any entity within the empire's legal reach. I guess the message is: don't piss off the feds. I'm sure Snowden has gotten the message long since; this case is still largely about deterring anyone else from going rogue with America's secrets. And the feds really have little choice in doing so since they must demonstrate that they expect to legally enforce NDAs and punish whistleblowers to the max. Otherwise, the oaths and NDAs will mean nothing to any court.
I say to the people that blindly support all this nonsense "Be careful what you ask for because you might just get it."
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Think you could narrow it down a bit better than that?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
No.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Yes,that IS the point.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Complete and utter BS. ...."damage the security of America if it [the illegal targeting & surveillance of all 325 million Americans for no good reason, having NOTHING to do with National Security] became general knowledge." FIXED. Nothing is fixed. Just more paranoid brain farts.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
NOT a bet I would bet against. The sad,sad truth is that all this senseless hysteria does is increase the profits of Snowden and the publishing company.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
You are,of course,correct as to the base of the story. From that launching pad comes the allegations as to what specific secrets he made public,if any. For all we KNOW,he made most of this stuff up out of thin air in an attempt to provide moral justification for his desertion.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Yeah, kinda ironic. As Trump and Howard Stern would tell you, there's no such thing as bad press.
I thought, for once, that someone should take a devil's advocate view of the entire Snowden affair. What if Snowden is an entire counter-intelligence operation? What if, in the wake of Wikileaks revelations, the U.S. intel community (CIA/NSA in particular) decided they needed to completely throw off all their rivals in the spy business? What if they chose Snowden as their agent, vetted out his various accounts of American electronic spying and methods, gave him copies of very old and defunct NSA software to help "prove" his case? I only mention it because, in espionage, you need to consider those unthinkable cases that no one would ever suspect. Those are the perfect counter-espionage operations. To be honest, I've never seen a single mention of the idea that Snowden is actually an American double-agent, passing false or defunct information to enemy intel services, while the American press shouts the Snowden news to the world and senators and DoJ staff stomp around acting Very Angry about it all. The very fact that no one has ever remotely suggested in public that Snowden is actually working for us makes me think it isn't such a bad theory after all. At the least, there's a pretty good little CT in my theory for Deckard and Liberator who - let's face it - can't keep their pants zipped up when they hear of such a juicy underhanded government conspiracy.
I see you bolded this portion concerning Snowden giving paid speeches or paid interviews about the book or anything described in it. Were you highlighting that the feds had closed off that avenue of income? I was pointing out the breadth of scope of the government claim. Note that it goes to speeches he has given disclosing information subject to his prepublication review obligations. The classified information he obtained is the property of the U.S. Government. The Government seeks to enjoin him from profiting from his unlawful acts, or the wrongful use of government property. If a book is contaminated with information subject to prepublication review obligations, the government can claim any derived income. A new book, with no problematic content would not be subject to the same litigation.
Anything is possible, but it seems unlikely to me. A more intriguing possibility of a sting operation is the ongoing Ukraine/Trump/Biden affair. That may have been Grandmaster Trump serving up a poisoned pawn variation, with the Dem/Libs and MSM jumping at the bait, only to find themselves stuck with a Dem/Biden (and Obama?) super-scandal rather than a Trump impeachment. Nancy goes all in today and Trump announces he is releasing an unredacted transcript of the conversation tomorrow. Following a positive test for cocaine, Hunter Biden was separated from the Naval Reserve in February 2014. Hunter Biden was appointed to the board of directors of Burisma on April 18, 2014. Daddy made it rain money.
I agree. Perhaps they wouldn't go after his biographical details but I seem to recall that he was going to make some paid speeches through a speakers bureau and it got abruptly cancelled. Fear of Uncle Sam's control of the global banking system, I think. After that, I don't think he gave any public paid speeches. One can imagine he could still get paid speech gigs in secret though. I think for Snowden, they'd cast a wide prosecutorial net and throw every charge in the book at him, just to see what sticks in court. That is, if he was ever foolish enough to return to the West (and if Russia would even allow him to leave Russia). I don't think he's ever been given the full rendition by the Russians and he says he has kept our most secret info to himself and not given it to any hostile power. If I were Snowden, I wouldn't leave Russia. I'd try to escape Russia to a non-extradition country. But Russia is one of the safest bets for him to live as a fairly free man. They are likely to remain outside U.S. jurisdictional claims for decades into the future. The Russians just like to be our rivals and opponents, always did, going back to the tsars when they sailed their version of the Great White Fleet around the world, well, before the Japanese sank most of the Russian fleet (which they're still rather proud of).
A little cocaine and the Naval Reserve gets all uppity about it. I seem to recall that Hunter was boffing his dead brother's widow for a while, comforting the grieving widow. I haven't heard much more about it. I suppose Joe put the kibosh on it so he didn't have to answer questions about Biden family inbreeding or make up some weird Onanistic story for the public.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
The Very Book The Government Does Not Want You To Read Just Went #1 In The World
Hmmm … New York Times Bestsellers: Current List
Gatlin
#3. To: Gatlin (#2)
#4. To: Deckard (#0)
The US government is now suing the publisher of the book for not giving the CIA and the NSA a chance to erase classified details from the book.
#5. To: A K A Stone (#4)
The US government is now suing the publisher of the book for not giving the CIA and the NSA a chance to erase classified details from the book.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#6. To: A K A Stone (#3)
It is number 2 on Amazon now.
#7. To: Deckard (#5)
Uh Freedom of Speech …
Gatlin
#8. To: Gatlin (#7)
(Edited)
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#9. To: A K A Stone, Gatlin (#3)
It is number 2 on Amazon now.
#10. To: Deckard (#8)
Edward Snowden is a hero.
Provides Proof The Government Is Spying On Citizens.
The Guardian published the first story based on the huge archive of documents that that Edward Snowden stole from the National Security Agency while working as an NSA contractor. Then-Attorney General Holder’s Justice Department quickly charged Snowden with felonies for theft of government property and mishandling classified information. Last week, however, Holder praised Snowden. “I think that he actually performed a public service by raising the debate that we engaged in and by the changes that we made,” Holder said.
Gatlin
#11. To: misterwhite (#9)
Then the headline should read:
#12. To: Gatlin (#10)
#13. To: A K A Stone (#3)
Edward Snowden an American hero.
Gatlin
#14. To: Gatlin (#13)
We are being spied on better and faster today
because of in spite of your American hero, Snowden.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#15. To: A K A Stone (#4)
Uh Freedom of Speech and the press little bitches.
#16. To: Deckard (#8)
Edward Snowden is a hero.
#17. To: Liberator (#11)
They still don't want the book read and info shared, do they?
#18. To: Deckard (#14)
(Edited)
We are being spied on better and faster today
… “Fixed it” … because of in spite of your American hero, Snowden. If you didn’t already know that and needed to be “provided proof” of such actions – then the only proof provided was that you were dumber that a pile of shit.
You go on to say … because of in spite of – Snowden. Snowden actually helped the agencies. He made them aware of a problem and they scrapped much and they were forced to develop and install new and much better capabilities faster than before and ever planned. because of. in spite of your American hero, Snowden. You seem to love warrantless spying on ALL American citizens.
Nah, I seem to love – well, I actually really do love – pointing out the errors in the rational and your seemingly fact less postings. You are so closed-minded and extremely agenda-driven. Obviously, you are one of those sheep who constantly bleat "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear".
Nope, I am one of those individuals endowed with the ability to use common sense and make good judgments. I can help you to learn those personal traits. Those are the words of tyrants and their submissive sycophants.
No, those are YOUR words posted by YOU.
Gatlin
#19. To: sneakypete (#16)
ANYBODY with 2 IQ points to rub together knows the government "spies" on citizens.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#20. To: sneakypete (#15)
#21. To: A K A Stone, Gatlin, sneakypete, Deckard (#20)
Justice News
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
Download snowden_complaint_final.pdf
Civil Division
19-988
#22. To: Deckard, sneakypete (#19)
ANYBODY with 2 IQ points to rub together knows the government "spies" on citizens.
In early 2006, EFF obtained whistleblower evidence (.pdf) from former AT&T technician Mark Klein showing that AT&T is cooperating with the illegal surveillance. The undisputed documents show that AT&T installed a fiberoptic splitter at its facility at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco that makes copies of all emails web browsing and other Internet traffic to and from AT&T customers and provides those copies to the NSA. This copying includes both domestic and international Internet activities of AT&T customers. As one expert observed, “this isn’t a wiretap, it’s a country-tap.”
Gatlin
#23. To: Gatlin (#22)
Stop with the bullshit that “No one really knew the extent until Snowden revealed it.”
#24. To: Gatlin (#13)
We are being spied on better and faster today because of your American hero, Snowden.
#25. To: A K A Stone (#23)
Stop with the bullshit that “No one really knew the extent until Snowden revealed it.”
On May 20, 2013, Edward Joseph Snowden [a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee and subcontractor] released classified documents there were initially published by the Guardian on June 5, 2013. source Real Americans understand that: It is a fact that no on[e] knew the extent.
Well “Hot Diggity Dog” – I would perhaps consider becoming one of YOUR “real Americans” if you will please furnish me with factual evidence of your statement.
Gatlin
#26. To: A K A Stone (#23)
The contract can't make him keep things that are illegal secret. Since it requires a search warrant to search someone and they aren't they are in violation.
Well, there – Good Buddy – will you please help out this poor ole country boy who you may not consider one of YOUR real Americans. I simply cannot understand what you are talking about here. I will therefore respond with a general statement. Since it requires a search warrant to search someone and they aren't they are in violation.
I sincerely apologize to you – but I do not have any idea what you are saying here and what it is in reference to. If you would like to clarify, then I will be more than happy to respond.
Gatlin
#27. To: Gatlin, A K A Stone (#26)
Well, there – Good Buddy – will you please help out this poor ole country boy who you may not consider one of YOUR real Americans.
I sincerely apologize to you – but I do not have any idea what you are saying here and what it is in reference to.
#28. To: Gatlin (#26)
#29. To: Tooconservative (#27)
#30. To: A K A Stone (#29)
(Edited)
#31. To: A K A Stone (#28)
(Edited)
They are using a law for prohibit free speech.
I understand that you are saying the DOJ is using a law to prohibit Snowden’s “freedom of speech.” Although he admittedly is in full violation of the non-disclosure agreement [contract] he signed with the agencies.
Gatlin
#32. To: sneakypete (#15)
When you have a security clearance you sign documents promising you will never reveal any information you gain due to the access your clearance gives you,and agree to the punishments outlined on the papers you sign.
#33. To: sneakypete (#17)
So they are cleverly keeping it out of circulation by allowing Amazon to sell it via mail order?
#34. To: Liberator (#11)
They still don't want the book read and info shared, do they?
#35. To: misterwhite (#34)
...they don't want classified information released.
#36. To: Gatlin, A K A Stone, Deckard (#31)
Please permit me to give you an example …
#37. To: Liberator (#35)
But additionally, they also don't like their entire operation exposed as illegal, immoral, dishonest, and abuse of authority and resources.
#38. To: Gatlin (#31)
I understand that you are saying the DOJ is using a law to prohibit Snowden’s “freedom of speech.” Although he admittedly is in full violation of the non-disclosure agreement [contract] he signed with the agencies. Let me see – how shall I properly express my take on this to you …
#39. To: misterwhite (#37)
Yep. We never would have known all that without this book.
#40. To: misterwhite (#37)
(Edited)
Yep. We never would have known all that without this book.
#41. To: misterwhite (#34)
It does appear, however, that they don't want classified information released.
#42. To: A K A Stone, Gatlin (#38)
...They don't have a warrant to listen to everyone's calls.
#43. To: A K A Stone (#41)
Snowden exposed treason
#44. To: Tooconservative (#30)
No, you were clear enough. Gatlin was merely "apologizing" strategically as a way to continue to try to advance his own argument that you are profoundly wrong (but you have every right to be wrong in a way so mysterious that Gatlin cannot possibly even comprehend that you might hold a reasonable fact-based opinion).
#45. To: A K A Stone (#38)
Well they don't have a warrant to listen to everyone's calls. They were breading the law.
While hat is true about “everyone’s” calls, your old buddy Rand Paul said that the NSA is empowered to spy on Americans’ communications without a warrant. Rand Paul was asked about President Trump’s accusation that President Obama ordered the NSA to wiretap his calls. The Kentucky senator expressed skepticism about the mechanics of Trump’s specific charge, saying: “I doubt that Trump was a target directly of any kind of eavesdropping.” But he then made a broader and more crucial point about how the U.S. government spies on Americans’ communications — a point that is deliberately obscured and concealed by U.S. government defenders.
The way it works is, the FISA court, through Section 702, wiretaps foreigners and then [NSA] listens to Americans. It is a backdoor search of Americans. And because they have so much data, they can tap — type Donald Trump into their vast resources of people they are tapping overseas, and they get all of his phone calls.
Paul’s explanation is absolutely correct. That the NSA is empowered to spy on Americans’ communications without a warrant — in direct contravention of the core Fourth Amendment guarantee that “the right of the people 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” — is the dirty little secret of the U.S. Surveillance State.
Gatlin
#46. To: Liberator (#32)
EVEN when the gubmint is clearly illegally VIOLATING the 4A ("unreasonable search & seizure")?
#47. To: Liberator (#33)
It's not as though the reptilian global spy agencies are "cleverly" and secretly wanting Snowden's book published -- is that what you're inferring?
#48. To: Liberator (#32)
#49. To: Liberator (#40)
Q: Do you believe there is good moral standing, legal standing and reason to surveil every single American's movement and life of every America? And if so, by what Constitutional Law or common sense reason?
#50. To: sneakypete (#16)
(Edited)
You don't think the Feebs didn't spy on recent German immigrants during WW-2? Hell,they put Japanese people who were born as US citizens in internment camps for the duration of the war.
Wiki: Internment of German Americans Shortly after the Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor, some 1,260 German nationals were detained and arrested, as the government had been watching them.[26] Of the 254 persons not of Japanese ancestry evicted from coastal areas, the majority were ethnic German.[27] During WWII, German nationals and German Americans in the US were detained and/or evicted from coastal areas on an individual basis. Although the War Department (now the Department of Defense) considered mass expulsion of ethnic Germans and ethnic Italians from the East or West coast areas for reasons of military security, it did not follow through with this. The numbers of people involved would have been overwhelming to manage.[28] WarHistoryOnline: The Internment Camps of Germans in America During WW2 ... After Germany surrendered, many of the internees were released and sent to Germany. Others remained in the camp. It was not until 1948 that the last “enemy alien” was released – three years after the war had ended.
#51. To: Tooconservative, A K A Stone (#30)
Gatlin is gaslighting you with his manipulative so-called "apology".
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#52. To: Deckard, A K A Stone (#51)
Gatlin is gaslighting you with his manipulative so-called "apology".
Look uo the “Columbo Method” … Never mind, just read this version: The key to the Columbo Method is to remember that all you really know is that the facts are conflicting. You don’t know for sure what else might be going on. So you carefully approach the situation in a humble way pleading lack of knowledge for if you approach the situation with an accusatory tone, assuming that the person is either incorrect or lying, then they most probably will get defensive. They will then check out mentally from the conversation and you will get nowhere. When you politely use the Columbo Method, it is more likely that the person will courteously open up and you get your point across better. All the while leaving the relationship intact.
Uh, let me see now, Deckard.
Gatlin
#53. To: Deckard (#51)
Gatlin is gaslighting you with his manipulative so-called "apology".
Look up the “Columbo Method” … Never mind, just read this version: The key to the Columbo Method is to remember that all you really know is that the facts are conflicting. You don’t know for sure what else might be going on. So you carefully approach the situation in an humble way pleading lack of knowledge for if you approach the situation with an accusatory tone, assuming that the person is either incorrect or lying, then they most probably will get defensive. They will then check out mentally from the conversation and you will get nowhere. When you politely use the Columbo Method, it is more likely that the person will courteously open up and you get your point across better. All the while leaving the relationship intact.
Uh, let me see now, Deckard.
Gatlin
#54. To: Gatlin (#53)
I will tell you more of my secrets.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#55. To: Gatlin (#53)
“ I am an old man on fixed income and …”
#56. To: sneakypete (#49)
Snowden is NOT a regular citizen whose mail is being read. He is a man that AGREED to not disclose any classified information he would gain access to after ACCEPTING a job that gave him access to classified information that could damage the security of America if it became general knowledge.
#57. To: Tooconservative (#50)
They put a significant number of Germans in America in the same kind of internment camps for the duration of the war.
#58. To: A K A Stone (#56)
(Edited)
So if the government wants to do something unconstitutional. They just make you sign a paper so if you find out you can't tell anyone.
#59. To: A K A Stone (#55)
“ I am an old man on fixed income and …”
Gatlin
#60. To: Deckard, A K A Stone, Deckard, sneakypete, misterwhite, tooconservative, CZ82, Gatlin, all (#0)
#61. To: Deckard (#54)
I Have now shared with you, two secrets this morning. I will tell you more of my secrets. But it will cost you – dearly.
Gatlin
#62. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#61)
#63. To: sneakypete (#46)
How do you know the government didn't apply for,and get a search warrant?
#64. To: sneakypete (#46)
(Edited)
There IS such a thing as classified search warrants.
#65. To: sneakypete (#47)
I am merely stating the obvious. The book and the classified info in it are already in the public domain,and you can't unring a bell.
#66. To: sneakypete (#48)
(Edited)
ME: "EVEN when the gubmint is clearly illegally VIOLATING the 4A ("unreasonable search & seizure")?
#67. To: sneakypete (#49)
(Edited)
[Snowden] is a man that AGREED to not disclose any classified information he would gain access to after ACCEPTING a job that gave him access to classified information that could damage the security of America if it became general knowledge.
#68. To: sneakypete, Deckard (#49)
Snowden is NOT a regular citizen whose mail is being read. He is a man that AGREED to not disclose any classified information he would gain access to after ACCEPTING a job that gave him access to classified information that could damage the security of America if it became general knowledge.
First published 2019 by Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company, LLC
First published in the UK 2019 by Macmillan
This electronic edition first published in the UK 2019 by Macmillan
an imprint of Pan Macmillan 20 New Wharf Road, London N1 9RR
Associated companies throughout the world
#69. To: Deckard (#51)
I had to look that up - very apt description of Gatlin's tactics.
#70. To: A K A Stone, Gatlin (#59)
Gatlin: I know there is Financial Exploitation in Aging …
#71. To: Liberator (#60)
#72. To: sneakypete, Liberator (#49)
He is a man that AGREED to not disclose any classified information he would gain access to after ACCEPTING a job that gave him access to classified information that could damage the security of America if it became general knowledge.
#73. To: nolu chan, Liberator (#21)
The claims asserted by the United States are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability.
#74. To: Tooconservative, Liberator, Gatlin (#73)
Isn't that consistent with a pro forma case brought mainly to maintain the enforceability of NDAs with the feds in American courts?
INTRODUCTION
21. As a condition of employment, and under the terms of the CIA Secrecy Agreements, Snowden was required never to disclose in any form or manner, to any person not authorized by the CIA to receive it, any information obtained in the course of his employment or other service with CIA and that is classified or in the process of a classification determination. See CIA Secrecy Agreements ¶ 3.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the United States of America respectfully requests that the Court award the following relief:
United States Supreme Court
#75. To: nolu chan (#74)
They do not seek money from Snowden. Snowden will get little, if any, money.
D. Impose a constructive trust for the benefit of the United States over, and require an accounting of, all monies, gains, profits, royalties, and other advantages that Snowden and his agents, assignees, or others acting on his behalf have derived, or will derive, from speeches he has given disclosing information subject to his prepublication review obligations;
#76. To: Liberator (#60)
What say you?
#77. To: Liberator (#63)
You mean all 325 million of them?
#78. To: Liberator (#65)
Have you read the book?
#79. To: Liberator (#66)
Sure -- no one has a gun to the others head. But that's not the point.
#80. To: Liberator (#67)
[Snowden] is a man that AGREED to not disclose any classified information he would gain access to after ACCEPTING a job that gave him access to classified information that could damage the security of America if it became general knowledge.
#81. To: Tooconservative (#68)
I bet Snowden is getting paid, no matter what DoJ is doing.
#82. To: nolu chan (#72)
The actual issue at litigation is the legal requirement for Snowden to have submitted his proposed publication to the agency, and to have obtained prior permission to publish it. As Snowden did not request permission, permission was not granted. The agency did not seek to prevent publication, but it has sought to prevent any financial income from the publication going to the benefit of Snowden.
#83. To: sneakypete (#81)
The sad,sad truth is that all this senseless hysteria does is increase the profits of Snowden and the publishing company.
#84. To: sneakypete, nolu chan, Deckard, Liberator (#82)
From that launching pad comes the allegations as to what specific secrets he made public,if any. For all we KNOW,he made most of this stuff up out of thin air in an attempt to provide moral justification for his desertion.
#85. To: Tooconservative (#75)
D. Impose a constructive trust for the benefit of the United States over, and require an accounting of, all monies, gains, profits, royalties, and other advantages that Snowden and his agents, assignees, or others acting on his behalf have derived, or will derive, from speeches he has given disclosing information subject to his prepublication review obligations;
#86. To: Tooconservative (#84)
What if Snowden is an entire counter-intelligence operation? What if, in the wake of Wikileaks revelations, the U.S. intel community (CIA/NSA in particular) decided they needed to completely throw off all their rivals in the spy business?
#87. To: nolu chan (#85)
I was pointing out the breadth of scope of the government claim. Note that it goes to speeches he has given disclosing information subject to his prepublication review obligations. The classified information he obtained is the property of the U.S. Government. The Government seeks to enjoin him from profiting from his unlawful acts, or the wrongful use of government property. If a book is contaminated with information subject to prepublication review obligations, the government can claim any derived income.
A new book, with no problematic content would not be subject to the same litigation.
#88. To: nolu chan (#86)
Following a positive test for cocaine, Hunter Biden was separated from the Naval Reserve in February 2014. Hunter Biden was appointed to the board of directors of Burisma on April 18, 2014. Daddy made it rain money.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]