Bill Summary
The resolution expresses the House of Representatives' position that the U.S. Federal Government should dismiss all charges against Edward Snowden. It highlights several key points:
1. **Misleading Testimony**: It references a Senate hearing where the then-Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, inaccurately stated that the NSA did not collect data on Americans, a claim he later retracted.
2. **Whistleblower Actions**: In June 2013, Snowden revealed NSA documents to journalists that disclosed the agency's bulk collection of Americans' phone records, which raised significant public concern about privacy and civil liberties.
3. **Legal Findings**: Subsequent court rulings found that the NSA's bulk collection program was unlawful and likely unconstitutional. Reports indicated that this program did not contribute to thwarting terrorist activities and violated the constitutional rights of Americans.
4. **Accountability and Whistleblower Protection**: The resolution calls attention to the lack of accountability for those involved in the illegal surveillance and emphasizes the need to protect whistleblowers who expose government abuses.
Ultimately, the resolution asserts that Snowden's disclosures served the public interest and advocates for the withdrawal of all legal actions against him.
Possible Impacts
The resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding Edward Snowden could have several impacts on different groups of people. Here are three examples:
1. **Whistleblowers and Government Employees**: The resolution's endorsement of the need to protect whistleblowers could encourage more individuals within government agencies to come forward with information about illegal or unethical practices without fear of retaliation. This might lead to increased transparency and accountability in government operations, as employees may feel safer disclosing misconduct.
2. **Public Trust and Civil Liberties Advocates**: By acknowledging the illegal and unconstitutional nature of the NSA's bulk collection program, this resolution could strengthen the resolve of civil liberties advocates and organizations. It may foster greater public awareness and activism around issues of privacy rights and government surveillance, leading to a more informed citizenry that actively participates in discussions and advocacy for stronger protections of civil liberties.
3. **Legal and Political Ramifications**: The resolution could influence legal proceedings and discussions surrounding the charges against Snowden, potentially leading to their dismissal. This could set a precedent for how future cases involving whistleblowers are handled, affecting the legal landscape surrounding national security, freedom of speech, and the rights of individuals to expose government wrongdoing. It could also impact the political climate, as lawmakers may feel pressured to address concerns about surveillance practices and consider reforms to existing laws like the Patriot Act.
[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 34 Introduced in House (IH)]
<DOC>
119th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 34
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Federal
Government should drop all charges against Edward Snowden.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 13, 2025
Ms. Greene of Georgia (for herself and Mr. Massie) submitted the
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary, and in addition to the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall
within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
_______________________________________________________________________
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Federal
Government should drop all charges against Edward Snowden.
Whereas, during a Senate hearing on March 12, 2013, James Clapper, then-Director
of National Intelligence, was questioned by Senator Ron Wyden, and was
asked whether the National Security Agency ``collect[ed] any type of
data at all on millions, or hundreds of millions of Americans'', to
which Clapper replied ``No, sir'', and added ``not wittingly'', a
response he later admitted was ``clearly erroneous'';
Whereas, in June 2013, Edward Snowden disclosed to a selective group of
journalists National Security Agency documents exposing that bulk
collection of Americans' telephone records from telecommunications
providers by the intelligence community was occurring;
Whereas, on June 21, 2013, the Department of Justice unsealed charges against
Edward Snowden for violating sections 793(d) and 798(a)(3) of the
Espionage Act and theft of government property under section 641 of
title 18, United States Code;
Whereas, on January 23, 2014, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board's
report on the National Security Agency's telephone records program found
``no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery
of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist
attack'' and that the program significantly threatened and violated the
constitutional rights of the American people;
Whereas, on May 7, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit ruled that section 215 of the Patriot Act did not authorize the
bulk collection of telephone records and therefore such collection was
unlawful;
Whereas, on September 2, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit ruled the National Security Agency's telephone records bulk
collection program illegal and possibly unconstitutional under the
Fourth Amendment;
Whereas the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found the
telephone records bulk collection program did not play a pivotal role in
any terrorism investigations;
Whereas those involved in the collection of Americans' telephone records have
yet to be held accountable for their illegal actions, further increasing
the danger of continued government overreach and abuse of civil
liberties; and
Whereas the United States Government must protect whistleblowers who expose
illegal and unconstitutional acts of abuse within our government: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives
that--
(1) the National Security Agency's bulk collection
telephone records program was illegal and unconstitutional;
(2) Edward Snowden's disclosure of this program to
journalists was in the public interest; and
(3) the Federal Government should drop all charges against
Edward Snowden.
<all>