Alan Dershowitz rips Edward Snowden: ‘We have an absolute right’ to spy on other countries
Source: Raw Story
By Arturo Garcia
Thursday, December 26, 2013 21:57 EST
Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz criticized National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden on Thursday during a debate with Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman, who published Snowdens first interview since being granted asylum in Russia earlier this year.
He could have easily gone on 60 Minutes, and disclosed the existence of the program without disclosing the contents, some of which is extremely damaging to our national security, Dershowitz told Hardball guest host Michael Smerconish, arguing that he could have released the information he compiled while working at the agency in a classified debriefing, instead of going to the Post and The Guardian.
In particular, Dershwoitz slammed Snowden for bringing to light the agencys surveillance activities against other countries, saying they raise some questions, but [were] not unconstitutional.
We have an absolute right under our Constitution to listen to the prime minister of Israel, to listen to the chancellor of Germany, Dershowitz said. That is not a constitutional issue, and yet he disclosed or people working on his behalf the fact that we are using surveillance abroad, outside the country, where the Constitution does not apply.
Dershowitz also argued that Snowden failed his criteria for criminal civil disobedience because of his departure from U.S. soil, and because his actions were not a last resort, a point Gellman contested.
Ive been reporting on national security for 20 years, Gellman told Smerconish. Im not familiar with any case of a national security whistleblower ever, in my 20 years of covering this stuff, who was able to make an impact inside or who wasnt crushed by the system for bringing his complaints.
Gellman also pointed out Snowdens remarks in the interview that he talked to both co-workers and multiple supervisors about his worries with the NSAs data-mining, which the agency has denied.
He said he thought they were unlawful, Gellman said. He said, also, that he thought the American people would react very badly to their disclosure which is actually a very brave thing to say when youre about to leak it yourself.
Dershowitz also criticized Snowdens statements calling his federal non-disclosure agreement a civil contract and saying he fulfilled his oath to the Constitution because, The oath of allegiance is not an oath of secrecy.
Its nonsense to say he signed a civil contract, Dershowitz said. It is a crime, and he knew it. Otherwise he wouldnt have run away.
Hes got a broader set of concerns than just domestic surveillance, Gellman said in response. He was looking for a big national debate about any kind of mass surveillance, any kind of people without specific reason to believe that theyve either done something wrong or that they have a legitimate target of foreign intelligence.
But that is not the law, Dershowitz said, cutting in.
He doesnt say that its about the law, Gellman answered. He says its a matter of policy.
Watch the discussion, as aired on MSNBC on Thursday, below.
Complete article posted with permission of Raw Story
Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/26/alan-dershowitz-rips-edward-snowden-we-have-an-absolute-right-to-spy-on-other-countries/
Orrex
(63,212 posts)Seems kind of far fetched to me.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)He's got plenty of company to prove him right.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)This man is repulsive to any decent human being. And the main issue isn't whether we spy on leaders of foreign governments...no one cares about that even if it is the only thing that gets some elitists riled up. No one wants to live in a country where the people are spied on and treated like prisoners. 1984 is what it's all about.
including "it is the only thing that gets some elitists riled up" -- don't see that articulated much.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Only when it affects them...they could give a crap about most Americans which is the root of the problem anyway...always back to the .01% vs Everyone Else.
rpannier
(24,329 posts)Probably unable to deal with Simpson being found not guilty
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Between the two, I find El Dorado the more credible.
PSPS
(13,599 posts)olddad56
(5,732 posts)of this country. Makes sense to me.
thesquanderer
(11,989 posts)I don't doubt that other countries can spy on us without breaking any of their own laws.
While I disagree with a lot of what he says, I think he's correct in saying that our spying on the citizens (or leaders) of other countries is not unconstitutional.
QuestForSense
(653 posts)Both say a lot of stupid shit in their quest to validate that ego. Pathetic!
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Too many old professors do not realize their cognitive abilities have declined and go on making fools of themselves for years.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)bl968
(360 posts)Show me one place in Bill of Rights where the Constitution says that it's application is limited to American Citizens only....
BornLooser
(106 posts)blah blah blah
Judi Lynn
(160,542 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)we'll get a torture warrant and torture it out of you.
rosesaylavee
(12,126 posts)question everything
(47,479 posts)Care to explain who is the "we" in your statement?
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)was to recall to folks attention that Dershowitz is pro-torture, therefore his opinions on any civil liberty issue are highly suspect.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Shut your fucking moth, Dershowitz.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)on communications between him and one of his clients, he'd change that tune quickly.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Not sure which country's constitution he's reading.
question everything
(47,479 posts)like China and Russia.
And I trust Dershowitz' opinion about the constitution more than I trues all the wannabe experts in the Guardian and on DU.
Certainly the Obama administration and others consider him a traitor.
He wants immunity, let offer him one and then grab him and throw him in jail. Together with Bradley Manning.
sendero
(28,552 posts).... between a traitor and a whistle-blower, a distinction lost on the feeble of mind or the pushing of agendas.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)except authority
treestar
(82,383 posts)But not time for discussing the arguments.
I usually disagree with this guy, but here he's more or less right. This is a country. All countries try to preserve themselves. And Eddie should have used the WPA and gone to trial in the US, and should have waited until he had something of more substance.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)What crime is Dershowitz with committing? If spying is wrong then the spy should face his charges.
sendero
(28,552 posts)It boggles the mind how simple you are.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)sendero
(28,552 posts)...
"Snowden found a gross violation of the constitution and blew the whistle"
"He did it the way he did because he saw what happened to people who tried to do it the "right" way"
And of course lastly, the government wouldn't think of leveling a charge against him to hide their own malfeasance, no that never happens.
Of course, the judicial system in this country is so corrupt only a fool would expect to get fair/constitutional treatment, none of the other whistleblowers did.
Snowden did what he had to do. He could not have done it any "better" way. He has made sure that names of operatives and such are not revealed, and that intelligence gathering methods are not revealed. One wonders just exactly what you and folks like you think he should have done.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Warrants are issued through FISC though it may nit be to your liking. Where in the Constitution did it give the right to Snowden or anyone to steal? Under the Whistleblower Act it exempts those in the security department so he violated when he declared himself a "whistleblower", it does not allow him to divulge information from the security department. If Snowden had been so "right" he would have remained in the US.
Not for a moment do I trust my private information to Snowden and the rest should feel the same way about his deeds. He can not be trusted.
sendero
(28,552 posts)..... you are clueless. I'm done.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)olddad56
(5,732 posts)you should have been born 75 years ago in a country in Europe. You would have made a good 'citizen'.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Squeals, yep that would be Snowden.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Go right ahead and trust the NSA. We know they lie for a living. They need lots of people just like you to be compliant.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)There seems to be trust placed in Snowden of which he does not deserve. Do I think there should be changes at NSA, yes, with the Snowden betrayal came to light it was immediately apparent background checks is lacking in proper attention. I can also say Snowden needs people like you to be compliant to his position, we know Snowden lies and apparently is a very large part of his daily life.
Psephos
(8,032 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)You know to keep your mouth shut or I could have been charged with espionage. How long have you worked or plan to do work for Snowden and his puppetmasters.
KinMd
(966 posts)or would if they could
rug
(82,333 posts)Response to DonViejo (Original post)
cpwm17 This message was self-deleted by its author.
The Wizard
(12,545 posts)that bestowed a Juris Doctorate on disgraced former Attorney General Alberto (Torquemada) Gonzalez.