Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
-- thank you earlier this month Fox News senior judicial analyst -- ended -- -- appeared on this program and said that it's -- is a hero.
-- does he expose details of these surveillance programs.
I would describe this man as an American hero -- a person willingness to risk life limb and and liberty.
In order to exposed to the American people one of the most extraordinary violations.
Of the American principles value judgments and the constitution itself.
And now and all of our history well since that impairments appearance -- -- -- other information.
Details about America's secret spy operations against foreign governments various foreign governments.
So does the judge still think of it Snowden as an American hero.
Now that he sees -- working with countries including China Russia Cuba and Ecuador.
Does an apology on it was -- what about.
I'm smiling because obviously.
Heroes can be flawed the only hero was -- -- was that killed on Good Friday his act of exposing.
The American government spying on almost every American was an act of heroism.
What he has done since then might that be what I would have done but that particular act was an -- of American heroism which was lawful because of his oath to -- -- the constitution.
I'm glad that he did it because the American public is entitled to know when the popularly elected government is doing the opposite of what it has sworn to do.
Uphold the constitution and preserve our freedoms.
Of course there are now suggesting that it -- may have taken that job as a contractor.
So that he could find out this information so that he didn't -- and others have suggested including Gordon Chang and he might well be working with the Chinese against the Americans you know not no one knows where this is going to -- up.
Espionage is a very problematic charge for the government to bring I'm surprised they brought it political but sure that's the statute the Espionage Act of 1917.
-- -- a temporary World War I statute that was supposed to last only during World War I here we are nearly a hundred years later.
And it prohibits speech that encourages the enemy or discourages Americans from resisting the enemy.
It was arguably invalidated by the Supreme Court in the Pentagon papers opinion.
It's also difficult to prove espionage because in order to prove how -- spying apparatus was harmed by what this former spy did.
You have to demonstrate to a jury what you're spying apparatus is on the government may end up revealing even more secrets than -- -- -- and did.
Which case we would then say well then where's the harm if the government's willing to spill the beans in order to get this guy.
On the other hand it is clear because he's admitted this he did give classified information to people who were unauthorized to receive it.
Was he morally justified in doing so a jury will probably decide that I would think a jury in the United States we treat him better than injury anywhere else that be my guess.
Part judge thank you you're welcome ship.
Filter by section