Thread: PRISM
View Single Post
Old 07-03-2013, 01:04 AM   #87
sexobon
I love it when a plan comes together.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by regular.joe View Post
... They also signed non-disclosure statements to qualify for access to the information they have leaked, and for that reason alone they should be jailed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplighter View Post
Basically, the conflict in non-disclosure agreements is "informed consent" A person cannot consent to something (secrets) they do not yet know If consent is a pre-condition and only after consenting they can learn the secret, their non-disclosure agreement may well become the lesser issue.
Divulging classified information has always been illegal; but, the government has always had difficulty in successfully prosecuting such cases. That's because the standard in criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt" which can be created if a violator uncovered illegal activity, official misconduct, wasn't clear on what was classified and what wasn't, feared reprisal as an internal whistleblower; or, had a crystalizing moment in which the violator became a conscientious objector to something subsequently learned.

So the government went the corporate route back around '86-'87 and started having everyone with a security clearance sign nondisclosure agreements; otherwise, lose their security clearances and most likely their jobs ... including military personnel who would be immediately processed for separation. I signed mine.

The nondisclosure agreements in themselves did not make divulging classified information illegal, there were already laws on the books for that. The agreements reminded people that it was illegal and more importantly provided for forfeiture to the government of any tangible gains a violator may realize from the breach of security. The government can sue violators just as corporations can sue individuals who violate nondisclosure agreements protecting proprietary information. These are civil cases in which the burden of proof is simply "a preponderance of the evidence" that they broke the law.

Shades of O.J.

Snowden could have stayed for trial in the court of public opinion and sought a Presidential pardon; but no, he ran like a traitor. Even if he never sees a day in jail here, the government can try to seize his assets anywhere they may be and every chance it gets for the rest of his life.
sexobon is offline   Reply With Quote