As we know, lawyers can argue anything. And what is Constitutional is what the SCOTUS says, and we know that they're "wrong" on lots of stuff when they want to be.

The fact remains that there is a process that whistleblowers should follow. Do they sometimes get punished anyway, yes, and that's regrettable. But going outside the process is the surest way to have even worse things happen. And if going through the channels doesn't work, then one has the option of resigning. Or going public and staying to make the case that what is happening is indeed illegal (or should be).

All complex human systems have issues. Anything involving official secrecy and "national security" even moreso. But I haven't seen any sort of sensible proposal for a such a system that doesn't involve punishment for unauthorized release of classified information.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.

Manning was in the US Army. Rules are different there.

Padilla probably should have been tried in an appropriate civilian court.

On January 3, 2006, Padilla was transferred to a Miami, Florida, jail to face criminal conspiracy charges. On August 16, 2007, a federal jury found him guilty of conspiring to kill people in an overseas jihad, and to fund and support overseas terrorism. Government officials had earlier claimed Padilla was suspected of planning to build and explode a "dirty bomb" in the United States, a plot they had foiled, but he was never charged with this crime.

On January 22, 2008, Padilla was sentenced by Judge Marcia G. Cooke of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida to 17 years and four months in prison. His mother, Estela Ortega Lebron, was relieved. She announced that they would appeal the sentence: "You have to understand that the government was asking for 30 years to life sentence in prison. We have a chance to appeal, and in the appeal we're gonna do better."[1]

On September 9, 2014, the federal appeals court ruled that the first sentence was too lenient, and sentenced Padilla to 21 years.[2]

[...]

Padilla traveled to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. On his return, he was arrested by U.S. Customs agents at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport on May 8, 2002, and held as a material witness on a warrant issued in the state of New York stemming from the September 11, 2001 attacks.

On June 9, 2002, two days before District Court Judge Michael Mukasey was to issue a ruling on the validity of continuing to hold Padilla under the material witness warrant, President George Bush issued an order to Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an "enemy combatant." Padilla was transferred to a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina without any notice to his attorney or family. The order "legally justified" the detention using the 2001 AUMF passed in the wake of September 11, 2001 (formally "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution" (Public Law 107-40)) and opined that a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil can be classified as an enemy combatant. (This opinion is based on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Ex parte Quirin, a case involving the detention of eight German spies operating in the United States while working for Nazi Germany during World War II).[17]

According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons:

* Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda," a designation for loosely knit insurgent groups sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war";
* He had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
* He had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
* He was a continuing threat to American security.

[...]

On February 22, 2007, at the competency hearing, Dr. Angela Hegarty, a psychiatrist hired by Padilla's defense, said that after 22 hours of examining Padilla, she believed that he was mentally unfit to stand trial.[37] She said that he exhibited “a facial tic, problems with social contact, lack of concentration and a form of Stockholm syndrome."[38] She diagnosed his condition as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).[38][39] She told the court, "It's my opinion that he lacks the capacity to assist counsel. He has a great deal of difficulty talking about the current case before him."[39] In cross examination, federal prosecutor John Shipley noted that Padilla had a score of zero on Hegarty's post-traumatic stress disorder test and pointed out that this information was omitted in her final report. Hegarty said that this omission was an error on her part.[39] Another psychiatrist hired by the defense testified along the same lines. The Miami Herald reported that a "U.S. Bureau of Prisons psychiatrist who believes Padilla is fit to face trial and Defense Department officials—are expected to testify at the ongoing hearing before U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke."[39]

International airports are different than US soil. If he was arrested before he officially re-entered the US, then certain rules are different (I think - IANAL).

There's no doubt that Bush's people went too far with the "Unitary Executive" BS and their attempting to define anyplace in the universe as "The Battlefield". I don't know enough about Padilla's case (or Manning's) to accept anyone's account as gospel. But the US does have legitimate national security interests and legitimate needs to be able to collect intelligence. And the ability to protect that intelligence from unauthorized release.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.

I don't agree with a lot of that piece, but I do with the excerpts I posted.

Lots of political hacks have held top positions at the CIA, FBI, etc., and age doesn't usually make them more moderate in expressing soundbites.

Snowden would have survived and would have gotten a fair trial. He likely would have been convicted, but he likely would have had the opportunity to plea to lesser charges as well (in exchange for coming clean about what he gave to whom and so forth).

How would him having an "accident" help in the overarching goal of finding out exactly what he took and what he did with it? It wouldn't. Snowden would have been treated very well in custody. And is still likely to be, once he comes home and is convicted (as I assume he will be, but who knows).

We're not going to see eye to eye on this, and I know I'm in the minority here in holding the views about Snowden that I do, but them's the breaks.

Cheers,
Scott.

I fear that you're mixing up Snowden's worst case scenarios of what could happen if the NSA and others broke all the rules, with what was and is legal under laws passed by Congress.

Yes, some courts have found some of those laws and activities unconstitutional. And that is a problem. There was too little oversight by Congress, and the laws were written too broadly.

But the laws and activities have been tweaked - they haven't been on the whole stopped.

Doesn't that mean that the scaremongering by Snowden and others was incorrect? Doesn't that mean that, on the whole, the activities aren't "illegal". Doesn't that indicate that our democratically elected officials are working within our Constitutional system?

Doesn't that mean that these are activities that are not inconsistent with our democratic traditions?

I get that lots and lots of people don't like that the NSA can have phone companies store every bit of metadata on our communications for N years (I seem to recall that periods of 3-5 years were mentioned in the debate, but I cannot find that number in the final bill) and can gain access to it with a specific warrant from a specific court.

The NSA's job is not to spy on US persons. It's outside their mandate. It's a distraction for the people there to have to sort through masses of US person's data. They don't want to do that.

There are people in the US who have their rights violated every day by over-zealous cops who don't have access to communications metadata. There are people whose lives are ruined by bad data in private credit reports, bad data and bad "science" in private software used to decide sentencing, and so forth. Compare that to how the NSA revelations have affected your real life...

Yes, we need to watch the watchers. But let's not construct some Stasi State out of shadows and fears that have little basis in reality.

Finally, if [generic] you do believe that there's a Deep State controlling too much in the US, what do you think people should do about it? Or more specifically, what should they do about it that is consistent with our "democratic traditions"? Abolishing the NSA won't help because their mandate is outside the US. Abolishing the FBI? The DOJ? Who would do their other work? Who would investigate the black hats that really are trying to steal all your information in hopes of blackmailing [generic] you, stealing all your money, and worse? Etc.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.