Added: Nekisha Fosdick - Date: 05.01.2022 07:18 - Views: 30068 - Clicks: 7952
In an exclusive U. TV interview, Edward Snowden said he would like to return home but that the U. That is the ultimate goal. But if I'm gonna spend the rest of my life in prison, the one bottom line demand that we have to agree to is that at least I get a fair trial.
And that is the one thing the government has refused to guarantee because they won't provide access to what's called a public interest defense," Snowden told " CBS This Morning. The former NSA contractor is shedding new light on his decision to reveal classified documents about the U. Snowden disclosed government programs that collected Americans' s, phone calls and internet activity in the name of national security and was subsequently charged under the Espionage Act for doing so. A congressional report said his disclosures "caused tremendous damage to national security. In his new memoir, "Permanent Record," Snowden tells his story in detail for the first time and speaks about his life in exile in Russia.
Snowden, who now identifies himself as a privacy advocate, said his biggest Nsa wanted tonight with standing trial in the U. I'm not asking for a pardon.
I'm not asking for a pass. What I'm asking for is a fair trial.
And this is the bottom line that any American should require. We don't want people thrown in prison without the jury being able to decide that what they did was right or wrong. The government wants to have a different kind of trial.
They want to use special procedures they want to be able to close the courtroom, they want the public not to be able to go, know what's going on. And, essentially, the most important fact to the government and this is the thing we have a point of contention on, is that they do not want the jury to be able to consider the motivations. Why I did what Nsa wanted tonight did. Was it better for the United States? Did it benefit us or did it cause harm?
They don't want the jury to consider that at all. They want the jury strictly to consider whether these actions were lawful or unlawful, not whether they were right or wrong. And I'm sorry, but that defeats the purpose of a jury trial," Snowden said. When pressed on whether he considers what he did unlawful, Snowden refused to take a position but said "it's not hard to make the argument that I broke the law. We've never heard that story," he said. Snowden also took issue with the common refrain that Nsa wanted tonight classified documents violated the oath of secrecy he took upon entering the CIA.
He said an oath of secrecy does not exist. That does not exist. There is a secrecy agreement, but there is also an oath of service. An oath of service is to support and defend, not an agency, not even the president, it is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies — direct quote — foreign and domestic.
And this begs the question, what happens when our obligations come into conflict. In a statement to CBS News, the NSA said: "Edward Snowden violated his lifetime obligation to protect classified information and betrayed the trust of his coworkers and the American people. They declined to comment. You sit here six years later, in exile in Moscow — where you say you don't want to be — was it worth it?
I mean when we look at all of these complexities and all of the consequences that we have as a result of any of the decisions that we go through in our lives. I think we realize that, look we see chances, opportunities in life when we get the chance to do something.
And right now, init's hard to look at the world and think nothing needs to change. But nothing changes just if we believe in something, we have to actually be willing to risk something. We have to actually be willing to stand for something.
You took an oath not to betray the country. You know the CIA has what you call an orientation, and indoctrination program, where they have a parade of horribles. And now you are on the list of parade of horribles, your picture is there. I was required to swear into oath when I entered into duty in the CIA. It is a very solemn thing. You are in a darkened room in front of a flag, everyone else is there. But it is important to notice that we did not say an oath of secrecy. One of the common misconceptions in one of the earlier attacks, that we heard inthat we don't hear of so much anymore is that I violated this oath of secrecy.
And this begs the question, what happens when our obligations come into conflict, right? What happens when you have a secrecy agreement, but you have also witnessed your own government, your own agency, your workplace, violating the rights of Americans, and people around the world on a massive scale. And as you've pointed out, growing up in the intelligence community, and your parents were in government. It wasn't easy for you to become personal here. But, I am curious, since Nsa wanted tonight grew up in a community where almost everyone was somehow connected to government service, many of them FBI, did you approach your family at all about this?
How did they react to it when you went through this process and how do they feel about it now? Because this is the bizarre sort of circumstance is the way that our laws are Nsa wanted tonight structured. InI was a contractor working for the NSA through a private company. But, formally, just on paper, I worked for a private company.
Now these contractors weren't covered by whistleblower protection laws. If I had tried to talk to a judge, a priest, a congressman, it would've been the same felony.Watch: TODAY All Day - July 25
If I talked to my family, it would've been the same felony. And of course, if I talked to a journalist, they considered telling the truth about talking about the government breaking the law is in itself a crime. And so, I couldn't tell anyone. I couldn't tell the love of my life, who is a central figure in this story, Lindsay Mills, my long time partner. Because if I had, the FBI could have charged her, as a part of the conspiracy. They could have charged her as sort of an accessory to the crime, so long as she didn't immediately after hearing from me, you know I'm thinking about talking about journalists, picked up the phone and said help, help, someone is going to talk to the press.
And so that made it a very isolating experience.
But, they did give us the following statement: Edward Snowden violated his life time obligation to protect classified information and betrayed the trust of his coworkers and the American people. Edward, do you acknowledge that you broke the law and that there are many people in this country that see your actions as traitorous? But what I will say is this. You know, it's not hard to make the argument that I broke the law, and I think that's actually the less interesting question.
It's funny that whenever the government comes after me they say, you know, these disclosures cause harm. But they never justify the harm, they never show evidence for it.
Even though, we are now more than six years on, it would be the easiest thing to show. But on the question of harm. I don't know that you're, forgive me, but how are in a position to judge the harm in your disclosures. Isn't that something that the intelligence community would be uniquely situated to gauge.
I am the only one who knows the actually documents that the journalists have, and the ones that they published. We all know, and so it's available to all of us to assess the harms. And again, if they had some classified information.
If they had some classified evidence that a hair on a single person's head was harmed, you know as well as I do, it would be on the front of The New York Times by the end of the day.Nsa wanted tonight
email: [email protected] - phone:(884) 221-5297 x 1905
Cookie Consent and Choices