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: 14304
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
Comments (1-48) not displayed.
.
.
.
#49. To: Liberator (#40)
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.
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]