Snowden vindicated by SIGNYM

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Snowden vindicated

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 21:14
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1287
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, November 11, 2015 9:14 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

A U.S. appeals court’s ruling on Thursday that bulk collection of telephone metadata by the National Security Agency is illegal has given fresh hope to supporters of the former government contractor, who say the judgment proves he was right to reveal the program. Some argue it’s another reason the 31-year-old should be allowed to return to the United States without fear of prosecution.

Stephen Kohn, executive director of the National Whistleblowers Center, said the ruling not only justifies Snowden’s actions, but underscores “the importance of whistleblowing.”

“Maybe someone who reveals a secret program that multiple federal judges say is ILLEGAL is a whistleblower who deserves gratitude — not prison?” tweeted Glenn Greenwald, the journalist whom Snowden turned to to help him reveal the bulk collection program.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/edward-snowden-nsa-court-ruling-
telephone-records-117733#ixzz3rEu24eey

The judge's ruling amounts to a verbal smackdown of the Obama administration's CONTINUED bulk collection of metadata:

“In my December 2013 Opinion, I stayed my order pending appeal in light of the national security interests at stake and the novelty of the constitutional issues raised. I did so with the optimistic hope that the appeals process would move expeditiously. However, because it has been almost two years since I first found that the NSA’s Bulk Telephony Metadata Program likely violates the Constitution and because of the loss of constitutional freedoms for even one day is a significant harm […] I will not do that today.”

“Because the loss of constitutional freedoms is an ‘irreparable injury’ of the highest order, and relief to the two named plaintiffs would not undermine national security interests, I found that a preliminary injunction was not merely warranted — it was required.” [emphasis by the judge]

“To say the least, it is difficult to give meaningful weight to a risk of harm created, in significant part, by the Government’s own recalcitrance.”

“To be sure, the very purpose of the Fourth Amendment would be undermined were this court to defer to Congress’s determination that individual liberty should be sacrificed to better combat today’s evil.”

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE