This is the "It is illegal to inform the citizen base that the government has removed their constitutional right" lawsuit.
The NSA and FBI removed every US citizen of their constitutional right, to privacy. Edward Snowden informed the US citzen base on their constitutional rights being removed.
This lawsuit is the government saying it is illegal for any US citizen to inform all other citizens when the government removes their constitutational rights.
Exactly. Where is the accountability for the government officials who deprived us of our rights in the first place? There's been none. They made a few perfunctory gestures toward self-control, and kept right on violating the Constitution in the same ways under programs with new names.
This is not a criminal case, judging guilt for crime; it's a civil contracts case for injunction against profits, per the NDA.
And citizens not bound by the NDA, who happen into the information (as would be the case with numerous US-citizen reporters who've written on the Snowden stoy while including specifics of his information disclosures) are not enjoined. At least not in this case.
The NDA does make it remarkably difficult for anyone with specific insider knowledge to publish and profit by disclosure.
NB: I am a space alien cat, not a lawyer. I'm not defending any position, publication, or contract, or questions of possible criminal prosecution. Just clarifying what is at hand, and what language applies.
This is the "It is illegal to inform the citizen base that the government has removed their constitutional right" lawsuit.
While I applaud what Snowden did, the issue in this case is quite a bit different than what you have portrayed here. The issue is whether or not he violated the terms of his NDA. And of course he did, in a gigantic and very public way, and then admitted it and has given many speeches about doing it, wrote a book about it, and had a movie created portraying it.
Sadly, this is an open and shut case. I am not even sure why he would defend it though, as the case is a “Grenada” [1] and a judgment from a US court will have zero effect on him while living in Russia.
What? No, this is a lawsuit for violations of the NDAs Snowden signed with NSA & CIA in particular regarding not submitting his manuscript for pre-publication review.
>>This lawsuit is the government saying it is illegal for any US citizen to inform all other citizens when the government removes their constitutational rights.
He can do whatever he wants but he has to suffer the consequences. Every state has secrets and employees with top clearances learn them by swearing to keep the secret. He can go to Congress or through the chain of command....or risk jail and financial ruin. Otherwise a CIA ex-chief could write a book and name all US spies in China or Russia...
”The United States’ lawsuit does not seek to stop or restrict the publication or distribution of Permanent Record. Rather, under well-established Supreme Court precedent, Snepp v. United States, the government seeks to recover all proceeds earned by Snowden because of his failure to submit his publication for pre-publication review in violation of his alleged contractual and fiduciary obligations.”
What? Either he released inappropriate material and it should be pulled, or he didn’t, and they should leave it alone. It is my understanding that a breach of contract does not entitle one to compensation unless one can show damages. By making this statement, they seem to be saying that there are none.
They’re basically saying “he doesn’t actually reveal anything problematic, we just want to steal the profits for this work, because we don’t like him and we can.”
For those wondering, the purpose here (part of a multi-pronged approach) is to restrict his income and seize his assets. The less money someone has access to, the less power they have. This makes it harder for him to live day-to-day, restricts his access to experts who won't work pro-bono, and ultimately will hurt his criminal defense should he ever return to the USA.
These guys don't fool around. Expect more pressure from other angles as well.
Nobody in this discussion seems to have mentioned the word "advance". Snowden has already been paid for this book, and the advance will have been negotiated with the expectation that it will be difficult to pay any additional royalties.
Has Snowden's contract with the publisher been exhibited yet? It'll be interesting to see if there's anything funny in there.
Can one of the internet lawyers out there explain why this is a civil lawsuit, and not a criminal lawsuit?
I'd think that if he committed an actual crime, it would be a criminal suit. I thought civil suits were for people trying to get money out of each other.
Or is this like how the feds couldn't get Al Capone for murder so they put him away for tax evasion?
This lawsuit is mostly about paragraph five of the NDA:
> 5. I hereby assign to the United States Government all royalties, remunerations, and emoluments that have resulted, will result or may
result from any disclosure, publication, or revelation of classified information not consistent with the terms of this Agreement.
Meanwhile a sitting US President can profit from royalties, remunerations, and emoluments that have resulted, will result or may result from foreigners and diplomats renting hotel rooms and golf courses owned (not divested) by same President and his immediate family.
Somehow I doubt the US government is after a few dollars from his book sales. It is more of a message to anyone trying to publish "unapproved" material in the future - don't do it or we will make your life hell.
IANAL, nor have I read the NDA's (I'm hoping they will be publicly released as part of discovery) but I doubt NDA's with either the NSA or CIA will have an expiry date.
A breach of contract on the plaintiff's side could but not necessarily will nullify the NDA.
The best outcome for Snowden I think would be if he can demonstrate a greater good, IE: that breaking this contract prevents a larger crime, that would be up to the court to decide.
I find it interesting to see that the DOJ is not trying to prevent publication, just trying to intercept financial gains based on the premise that he didn't submit copy for review. At this point they are not claiming that he is actually publishing any confidential material.
Somehow I doubt Snowden's main motivation for publishing this book is financial, so I don't know if this will hurt him much..
Having known other people who have worked for the NSA, they've had to clear any publications with them before publishing (eg, academic papers in a field related to their work, resumes describing work done at the NSA, etc).
My understanding is they're enforcable for the rest of your life.
I'd expect to see this if anybody published a book without clearance. It's only newsworthy because it's Snowden.
Something that never made sense to me in the Snowden case is how any of this works in face of whistleblower protection laws in USA.
According to Wikipedia, the US offers these legal protections:
> Whistleblower protection laws and regulations guarantee freedom of speech for workers and contractors in certain situations. Whistleblowers are protected from retaliation for disclosure of information which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.
But when Snowden blew the whistle on 3-letter agencies, all that goes out the window? Does the government not follow its own laws?
A. He did not try to whistleblow through any officials channels in the NSA, intelligence community, or Congress
B. He stole somewhere around 1.5 million documents, of which the vast majority had nothing to do with the programs he thought were illegal
The house intelligence committee report on Snowden actually concedes that he could have enjoyed whistleblower protection under the law at the time. One could make the argument that one should not have trusted those protections and Snowden decided the same. But that still doesn't explain why he stole so much classified material that was unrelated to his civil liberties concerns.
This will only attract more attention to him and what he has to say, won't it? If non-tech people did forget about him, now they will recall and wonder what came of all this.
Unfortunately, many people are just subservient to authority. Einstein said of this sort of thing when authorities attack liberty and justice:
>Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.
US courts even already ruled what Snowden revealed is unconstitutional. Howevet, it's unlikely he will unanimously be seen as a hero until he has the muscle in the world standing behind him.
If you're afraid that the US government and not Edward Snowden will receive the proceeds of the book you purchase, you can also make a donation to Ed's legal defense fund at
This may actually be good news. Somebody might have determined that it's not worth the political cost to prosecute him publicly, so they'll press civil charges, slowly make the criminal stuff go away, then it becomes a "normal" lawsuit instead of such a hot potato. (I am freely speculating here)
"The lawsuit also names as nominal defendants the corporate entities involved in publishing Snowden’s book. The United States is suing the publisher solely to ensure that no funds are transferred to Snowden, or at his direction, while the court resolves the United States’ claims. Snowden is currently living outside of the United States."
No, this is the only way Snowden can be hurt today. If other avenues open you can bet they will be immediately exploited. Mannings treatment spells volumes here and what they did to Manning will be a walk in the park (in no way diminishing it) compared to what they'll do to Snowden.
Lol, Snowden can't be prosecuted publicly because he's hanging out in Russia. If he got on a plane back to the US today he'd be in front of judge for a plea hearing tomorrow.
This is the exact opposite of what you suggest. Someone has such a motivation for "justice" and can't put him in jail, so they want to deprive him of the profits for his book.
[+] [-] HashThis|6 years ago|reply
The NSA and FBI removed every US citizen of their constitutional right, to privacy. Edward Snowden informed the US citzen base on their constitutional rights being removed.
This lawsuit is the government saying it is illegal for any US citizen to inform all other citizens when the government removes their constitutational rights.
[+] [-] excalibur|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bb88|6 years ago|reply
The SF86 form offers no leeway for moral objections. So in such a scenario, it would be better to not submit the SF86 form in the first place.
The only people I'm aware of that can publish classified information without punishment are journalists.
[+] [-] koolba|6 years ago|reply
It just makes it a perfect candidate for jury nullification!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
[+] [-] dredmorbius|6 years ago|reply
Strictly, no.
This is not a criminal case, judging guilt for crime; it's a civil contracts case for injunction against profits, per the NDA.
And citizens not bound by the NDA, who happen into the information (as would be the case with numerous US-citizen reporters who've written on the Snowden stoy while including specifics of his information disclosures) are not enjoined. At least not in this case.
The NDA does make it remarkably difficult for anyone with specific insider knowledge to publish and profit by disclosure.
NB: I am a space alien cat, not a lawyer. I'm not defending any position, publication, or contract, or questions of possible criminal prosecution. Just clarifying what is at hand, and what language applies.
[+] [-] geggam|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] r00fus|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] downandout|6 years ago|reply
While I applaud what Snowden did, the issue in this case is quite a bit different than what you have portrayed here. The issue is whether or not he violated the terms of his NDA. And of course he did, in a gigantic and very public way, and then admitted it and has given many speeches about doing it, wrote a book about it, and had a movie created portraying it.
Sadly, this is an open and shut case. I am not even sure why he would defend it though, as the case is a “Grenada” [1] and a judgment from a US court will have zero effect on him while living in Russia.
[1] https://youtu.be/5yhxTyYEF9s?t=24s
[+] [-] mzs|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pier25|6 years ago|reply
What gives the NSA the right to capture private data from other countries?
[+] [-] lern_too_spel|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjtheblunt|6 years ago|reply
[ asking because i don't know ]
[+] [-] eigenloss|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onetimemanytime|6 years ago|reply
He can do whatever he wants but he has to suffer the consequences. Every state has secrets and employees with top clearances learn them by swearing to keep the secret. He can go to Congress or through the chain of command....or risk jail and financial ruin. Otherwise a CIA ex-chief could write a book and name all US spies in China or Russia...
[+] [-] lawnchair_larry|6 years ago|reply
What? Either he released inappropriate material and it should be pulled, or he didn’t, and they should leave it alone. It is my understanding that a breach of contract does not entitle one to compensation unless one can show damages. By making this statement, they seem to be saying that there are none.
They’re basically saying “he doesn’t actually reveal anything problematic, we just want to steal the profits for this work, because we don’t like him and we can.”
[+] [-] kstenerud|6 years ago|reply
These guys don't fool around. Expect more pressure from other angles as well.
[+] [-] abecedarius|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gnud|6 years ago|reply
Wouldn't a great defense here be that the NDAs shouldn't be enforced because the actions covered were criminal? I mean, isn't that standard with NDAs?
[+] [-] bloak|6 years ago|reply
Has Snowden's contract with the publisher been exhibited yet? It'll be interesting to see if there's anything funny in there.
[+] [-] reaperducer|6 years ago|reply
I'd think that if he committed an actual crime, it would be a criminal suit. I thought civil suits were for people trying to get money out of each other.
Or is this like how the feds couldn't get Al Capone for murder so they put him away for tax evasion?
[+] [-] zer0faith|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swixmix|6 years ago|reply
> 5. I hereby assign to the United States Government all royalties, remunerations, and emoluments that have resulted, will result or may result from any disclosure, publication, or revelation of classified information not consistent with the terms of this Agreement.
https://www.gsa.gov/forms-library/classified-information-non...
Download SF312-13.pdf.
[+] [-] gigama|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paxys|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sarcasmatwork|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jascii|6 years ago|reply
A breach of contract on the plaintiff's side could but not necessarily will nullify the NDA.
The best outcome for Snowden I think would be if he can demonstrate a greater good, IE: that breaking this contract prevents a larger crime, that would be up to the court to decide.
I find it interesting to see that the DOJ is not trying to prevent publication, just trying to intercept financial gains based on the premise that he didn't submit copy for review. At this point they are not claiming that he is actually publishing any confidential material.
Somehow I doubt Snowden's main motivation for publishing this book is financial, so I don't know if this will hurt him much..
[+] [-] mcpherrinm|6 years ago|reply
My understanding is they're enforcable for the rest of your life.
I'd expect to see this if anybody published a book without clearance. It's only newsworthy because it's Snowden.
[+] [-] ceejayoz|6 years ago|reply
Surely the NSA/CIA's NDAs are permanent?
[+] [-] Swizec|6 years ago|reply
According to Wikipedia, the US offers these legal protections:
> Whistleblower protection laws and regulations guarantee freedom of speech for workers and contractors in certain situations. Whistleblowers are protected from retaliation for disclosure of information which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.
But when Snowden blew the whistle on 3-letter agencies, all that goes out the window? Does the government not follow its own laws?
[+] [-] henryfjordan|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GVIrish|6 years ago|reply
A. He did not try to whistleblow through any officials channels in the NSA, intelligence community, or Congress
B. He stole somewhere around 1.5 million documents, of which the vast majority had nothing to do with the programs he thought were illegal
The house intelligence committee report on Snowden actually concedes that he could have enjoyed whistleblower protection under the law at the time. One could make the argument that one should not have trusted those protections and Snowden decided the same. But that still doesn't explain why he stole so much classified material that was unrelated to his civil liberties concerns.
[+] [-] tedunangst|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rblion|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wallace_f|6 years ago|reply
>Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.
US courts even already ruled what Snowden revealed is unconstitutional. Howevet, it's unlikely he will unanimously be seen as a hero until he has the muscle in the world standing behind him.
[+] [-] alexanderdmitri|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 13415|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dbrower|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BlahBoy3|6 years ago|reply
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Easy_Day
[+] [-] Tepix|6 years ago|reply
https://edwardsnowden.com/en/donate/
[+] [-] thathndude|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mv4|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] n8henry|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dooglius|6 years ago|reply
This is the actual goal here.
[+] [-] jacquesm|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] henryfjordan|6 years ago|reply
This is the exact opposite of what you suggest. Someone has such a motivation for "justice" and can't put him in jail, so they want to deprive him of the profits for his book.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] markjenkinswpg|6 years ago|reply