Can it ever be a crime to expose gov acts that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL? Daniel Ellsberg - VIDEO

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

Last edited Mon Jun 10, 2013, 12:09 AM - Edit history (1)

Something no U.S. court, including the SCOTUS, has weighed in on yet, according Daniel Ellsberg who asked that very question just now on CNN...

#!


I say of course not, unless you live in a totalitarian state.

Do we live in a totalitarian state?

[Recursion]

1. Sure

Of course it can.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

3. according to proto fascists, sure

[Recursion]

4. Maybe I'm being too literal. Violating any law is a "crime"

There are documents revealing unconstitutional acts by the government that it is unlawful to disclose to generic third parties. So, yes, as a simple factual question it can be a crime. There's really no argument there. That doesn't mean it's wrong, or an evil thing to do, just that it's against the law.

[ZombieHorde]

2. The US Government seems to think so. nt

[tritsofme]

5. So anyone with a security clearance can act as a one man Supreme Court?

And disclose whatever they determine to be unconstitutional? Sounds like a smart system.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

6. No Anyone with knowledge & access to proof of unconstitutional acts by the government IS duty bound

to disclose that information to the public.

Then it is up to the courts to decide if what they disclosed was actually unconstitutional acts, and then act accordingly to stop those acts from continuing.

Otherwise, what is the use of having a constitution?

[Recursion]

7. That's an interesting system you propose, but the law specifies what to do in that situation

It involves talking to an IG or Ombudsman/woman as appropriate, or a Representative or Senator.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

10. More effective than yours, as daylight is the strongest disinfectant

which has been demonstrated to be true time and again throughout history, otherwise the status quo never changes, and is continued to be protected by secrecy.

I say that it is not a crime to expose a crime.

[Recursion]

17. Well, then you mean something by "crime" that most people don't

A "crime" is an act in contravention of law.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

20. Not at all.

Snowden has broken the law, a crime, to reveal a much larger crime, something being done in secret that he believed to be unconstitutional.

So the question stands, can that really be a crime?

[Recursion]

21. And the very obvious answer is, "yes, that can really be a crime"

You may be confusing "criminal" with "immoral" or "indefensible" or something, but any time you break a law, that's a crime.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

24. I would argue, only in a totalitarian state can it be a crime to disclose gov criminal activities

You may be confusing the U.S. with a totalitarian state, but as far as I am aware we are not there, yet... and that is what the answer to this question will determine.

Let's see if the courts have the guts to take this one on.

[Recursion]

25. By your definition every state in history is "totalitarian"

I can't think of a government that doesn't have a classification system.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

28. Nonsense

I am only talking about the U.S.

And if the SCOTUS were to answer YES, it is a crime to report unconstitutional acts committed by the gov in secret, then we ARE living in a totalitarian state.

[Recursion]

47. Of course not. I do think they are who decides what is and isn't a "crime", which was the OP

It's a crime to do something that the government has passed a law making illegal. I don't see what's so difficult about this.

[randome]

8. 'Unconstitutional' means different things to different people. That's why we have a Supreme Court.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

12. And it's way past time for them to weigh in on this question

and now we have the perfect case for which it to decide on.

[OilemFirchen]

14. Then you should bring it.

If you have standing.

The USSC doesn't decide law by fiat.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

26. This case has standing on this question

will the SCOTUS accept it, is the only question now, and if they do, how they rule will tell us if we now live in a totalitarian state or not as it would be obvious to most fair minded Americans that obviously it can NOT be a crime to report on unconstitutional acts committed by the state.

Funny how even this simple question is dodged by the usual suspects on DU, isn't it?

[OilemFirchen]

27. What case?

I'm unaware that anything related to his is on the Court's docket.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

30. The Snowden case

Haven't you heard about it yet?

It's all over DU, take some time to get up to speed if need be.

[OilemFirchen]

36. Snowden v. who?

Give us a hint already.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

37. Let's stick to the topic

just answer the question

[OilemFirchen]

50. Okay.

Yes.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

51. Good. So you are another advocate for the totalitarian point of view

I respect your honesty.

[OilemFirchen]

53. Another lovely "so" construct.

Thanks for the respect. Consider it returned in the same spirit.

[Recursion]

29. "Cases" don't have standing. A person has standing (or doesn't) in a given case.

And unless you're being charged with a crime, you don't have legal standing in this, incidentally.

I also have no idea what case you're talking about; there's not a court case related to Snowden's leak. (Yet.)

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

31. Thank you, capt obvious

And again, obviously this discussion is in regard to the Snowden case.

And you are all-in already... apparently you side with the fascists, which is good to know.

[Recursion]

32. What "Snowden case"? He hasn't even been charged, let alone docketed, yet

DOJ has said they're investigating, but they haven't even said they are convinced he broke the law yet (remember, we only have his word and the word of some histrionic Congresscritters that what he leaked is actually classified).

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

33. We have the President on record criticizing the leaker, among others

FYI

And that doesn't make the question any less valid, and besides, you already went all-in.

Your handle certainly suits you.

[OilemFirchen]

45. And, for our fellow inerlocutor...

it should be pointed out that, in the event Snowden is apprehended and charged, he wouldn't be tried in the Supreme Court.

Nearest I've heard to a constitutional challenge is Rand Paul's hilariously ill-contrived 10-million strong class-action tort.

[OilemFirchen]

13. In this country, all laws are Constitutional.

Unless and until the Judiciary rules otherwise.

How do you think laws are enacted?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

15. not true, as many have been overturned by the SCOTUS

and it is time for them to weigh in on this question, and this is just the case to answer that question.

So, if the SCOTUS rules that the policies of the NSA were unconstitutional, then it would not be a crime to report them to the public.

[OilemFirchen]

19. Thought I just said that.

If and when a court, up to and including the USSC rules that the underlying law is unconstitutional then it's demonstrably legal to report on violations.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

22. Doesn't matter.

And what you propose would not solve the problem with crimes being committed in secret, they would be allowed to continue in perpetuity.

THe question stands.

[backscatter712]

9. Morally, no.

But the Nazis considered it a crime for the White Roses to criticize them, and had them guillotined.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

11. And I think it can be codified in law as well, it is time for the courts to weigh in on this matter

and I pray that they don't take the route that the nazis did... or at least that would end the debate if we are now a totalitarian state or not.

[Luminous Animal]

16. I don't think I've seen "the law" typed so many times on DU as I have had

these past several days.

[Fumesucker]

18. How can it not be a crime to expose unconstitutional acts by government?

Government makes the rules and they are going to be sure to make it a crime to uncover anything they don't like being uncovered.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

23. That would be the true definition of a totalitarian state

This would be one way to determine if we are there yet.

[stevenleser]

34. Nothing illegal or Unconstitutional was exposed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981244

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

35. That does not answer the question

FYI

But I will c your link, and raise you 2...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

#!

[stevenleser]

38. You didn't raise anything. All of my facts are accurate. nt

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

39. please stick to the topic, thanks

If you can't or don't want to answer the question, just move on...

[stevenleser]

42. I'll write whatever I please, thanks.

Worry about the content of your own posts.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

44. no kidding

but this is my thread, so please forgive my concern about the responses, and lack there of.

[kenny blankenship]

40. I think they go out of their way to make that a crime - especially that!

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

58. True

But to my mind that would only be a crime in a totalitarian state.

[sabrina 1]

41. No, it is not a crime to expose violations of the Constitution by those who took an oath

to protect them. It is the duty of every citizen to report such crimes. Bad laws should not be obeyed by good citizens. When good citizens ignore bad laws and do what is right, good things happen. See the Civil Rights Movement eg.

[ProSense]

55. The key

"No, it is not a crime to expose violations of the Constitution by those who took an oath to protect them. It is the duty of every citizen to report such crimes. Bad laws should not be obeyed by good citizens. When good citizens ignore bad laws and do what is right, good things happen. See the Civil Rights Movement eg. "

...here is "Movement." Advocating that people subjectively ignore laws is fairly absurd. Should people stop paying taxes because they believe the IRS is unconstitutional? Should Republican Governors ignore the health care law and Medicaid expansion because they believe it's unconstitutional?

There is a process in place for determining whether laws are unconstituional. Laws can be challenged, but breaking or ignoring laws based on subjective criteria like your opinion is not that process.

The current actions were lawful, and have not been officially challenged as unconstitutional. In fact, if the program doesn't target Americans as the administration claims, it would not be considered unconstitutional. It's the notion of spying on Americans that people are using as the basis for declaring the law unconstitutional.

[think]

43. Great interview. I'll stick with Ellberg's opinion.

If the documents expose the NSA for illegal and unconstitutional activities then the whistle blower should be absolved like he was.

[Recursion]

48. What makes you think the NSA is doing something illegal?

The 2008 FISA law was designed to specifically allow this kind of thing, which is why so many of us didn't like the law.

[think]

52. The fact that the Fisa court said the NSA has already violated the law:

But unfortunately the ruling is classified so it isn't being made public:

Justice Department Fights Release Of Secret Court Opinion On Law That Underpins PRISM Program

A 2011 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruling found the U.S. government had unconstitutionally overreached in its use of a section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The National Security Agency uses the same section to justify its PRISM online data collection program. But that court opinion must remain secret, the Justice Department says, to avoid being "misleading to the public."

The DOJ was responding to a lawsuit filed last year by the Electronic Frontier Foundation seeking the release of a 2011 court opinion that found the government had violated the Constitution and circumvented FISA, the law that is supposed to protect Americans from surveillance aimed at foreigners.

Full article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/justice-department-prism_n_3405101.html

So ya, I think it's a pretty safe bet that laws were violated. It's just a matter of getting to the documentation and facts now that politicians have put up multiple roadblocks to get to get to the truth of the matter ....

[stevenleser]

49. Ellsberg is not a lawyer, the activity was not unconstitutional. There are plenty of appeals court

cases that say so.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981244

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

54. Agreed. I am glad he is still active and willing to speak out on these important issues of our day.

I hope this young man gets his day in court for I believe this question needs to be answered one way or the other to let us know what kind of country we live in.

[Agnosticsherbet]

56. In our system, the Supreme Court is the arbiter of what is or is not Constituitonal...

For everyone else, it is an opinion.

Now, an appellate judge or a Constitutional Scholar has a well informed opinion, but it is opinion none the less, and everybody's got one.

There are people who are of the opinion that Obama is violating the Constitution because he was born in Kenya and is going to come into their house and take their guns. What can they do to expose what is in their opinion an egregious violation of the Constitution? Clearly, mailing Ricin to members of the government is not a way to expose what they see as UNCONSTITUTIONAL acts.

What can a Sovereign citizen do to expose what he sees as the unconstitutional act of a police officer writing him a ticket or a Census worker demanding he fill out his census papers? Shooting people who are doing things that he thinks is UNCONSTITUTIONAL is against the law.

Yes, it can be a crime to expose gov acts that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL if one breaks other laws to do it. A common citizen in our representative democracy does not have the authority to decide something is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. He has the right to act within the law.

Now, I think there should be stronger protections for whistleblowers. There also should be a way their concerns can be investigated by someone who is not part of what they think might be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

57. That wa a whole lot of dancing

To say yes

[Agnosticsherbet]

59. For some question, both yes and no are false.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

61. Unknown, unknowns, eh...

[Agnosticsherbet]

62. No, complex questions require nuanced answeres.

[woo me with science]

60. K&R The modus operandi of authoritarian states

is to make "legal" what they want to do.

Thank you, Daniel Ellsberg.

Our Constitution is under assault, along with the 99 percent.
This is a watershed, absolutely non-partisan issue. It affects every single American citizen.

They are attempting to normalize the step-by-step elimination of the Constitution.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981711

NSA memo pushed to 'rethink' 4th Amendment
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022984470

Don't entertain this garbage.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981567