section122 Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 Absolute Hero. Before he spoke up anyone who was concerned about the government doing this was thought to be a nut job. Scary, scary, scary stuff.
DC Tom Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 Neither. Just a stupid kid. It's not traitorous to release classified info to the media (China or Iran, that'd be another story. The Guardian? Hardly.) And it's not heroic to be an idiot, else this board would be full of Medal of Honor winners.
3rdnlng Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 Neither. Just a stupid kid. It's not traitorous to release classified info to the media (China or Iran, that'd be another story. The Guardian? Hardly.) And it's not heroic to be an idiot, else this board would be full of Medal of Honor winners. I disagree. I don't think it matters who he released the classified info to. What if the classified info was the identity of deep cover CIA agents, and that release led to them being killed? I think he is a traitor with an *. His intentions were good and I really think there needed to be more light shed on what was going on, but he had no right to do what he did and broke his sworn oath in doing so.
3rdnlng Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 Welcome back He's been here but under another name.
section122 Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 I disagree. I don't think it matters who he released the classified info to. What if the classified info was the identity of deep cover CIA agents, and that release led to them being killed? I think he is a traitor with an *. His intentions were good and I really think there needed to be more light shed on what was going on, but he had no right to do what he did and broke his sworn oath in doing so. You changed the entirety of what he did though. He exposed a government program that is extremely dangerous to regular citizens. Why would you bring a what if into the situation? Talk about what he did do. How do you feel about those actions? Are you happy that he did it or mad that he did it? Do you think he should have done it or not? He unveiled a major injustice being carried out by our own government. That makes him a hero in my book.
meazza Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 He's been here but under another name. I am aware. That avatar is much more welcoming.
B-Large Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 Heros run into burning houses and pull out survivors, run into the streets of Oklahoma during a twister and pull kids to safety.... I am uncomrtable with hero being thrown around in this story.... Patriot maybe? Freedom fighter perhaps? When you get security clearance and are privied to some top secret ****, you should honor that priviledge and commitment. I am not saying there is not a line in which the Government should not cross with reagrds to protections and rights preserved under the law of the land, but in matter s of domestic security I think these programs are designed to keep the citizenery safe and to thwart attacks, and I assume they are successful at doig that. I keep thinking that one of the few duties of the Federal Government is to provide for domestic defense, this is just another tool in that effort, am I right on that or just a naive plug begging for his right to stripped from his very hands?
3rdnlng Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 You changed the entirety of what he did though. He exposed a government program that is extremely dangerous to regular citizens. Why would you bring a what if into the situation? Talk about what he did do. How do you feel about those actions? Are you happy that he did it or mad that he did it? Do you think he should have done it or not? He unveiled a major injustice being carried out by our own government. That makes him a hero in my book. My argument with DC was that it didn't matter who he released the information to. If it would be traitorous to release it to China or Al Qauda, it's traitorous to release it to the Guardian. What I get from you here is that the determination of a traitorous act is detrermined by your opinion regarding the information released. So, if you had thought that the NSA data mining was ok it would have been a traitorous act to expose the program? Or is releasing classified information ok even if you've sworn an oath not to do so?
dayman Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) At this point I would say traitor. Although I do think what is leaked is important...I'm not really convinced this stuff should have been leaked. Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong but to the best of my knowledge there is giant a database w/ the numbers my number called and how long we spoke buried somewhere in there..and nobody can look at the content w/ out more particularized suspicion...and apparently nobody can read my email unless it is somehow connected with a terrorist suspect who is not in the united states... Less than optimal to say the least...but is this something that shocks me given my understanding of how "private" my digital life is anyway? Not really. Edited June 12, 2013 by SameOldBills
Kevbeau Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 Can we make "douchebag" an option. I only say that because this feels like an attention grab masked in patriotism. I freely admit I haven't delved too deep into the story, so I may (and probably am) way off.
DC Tom Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 My argument with DC was that it didn't matter who he released the information to. If it would be traitorous to release it to China or Al Qauda, it's traitorous to release it to the Guardian And you'd be wrong. It doesn't meet the legal definition of "treason". . At this point I would say traitor. Although I do think what is leaked is important...I'm not really convinced this stuff should have been leaked. Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong but to the best of my knowledge there is giant a database w/ the numbers my number called and how long we spoke buried somewhere in there..and nobody can look at the content w/ out more particularized suspicion...and apparently nobody can read my email unless it is somehow connected with a terrorist suspect who is not in the united states... Less than optimal to say the least...but is this something that shocks me given my understanding of how "private" my digital life is anyway? Not really. And nobody really knows it was you. Not like it's not hard to reverse-lookup, but...caller, receiver, time of call, and probably some location information (GPS, cell tower).
dayman Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) And nobody really knows it was you. Not like it's not hard to reverse-lookup, but...caller, receiver, time of call, and probably some location information (GPS, cell tower). Really not a big deal to me...maybe I'm just young and didn't grow up in a more private world but honestly I like the technology and I don't think this is that bad...apparently they can't get at texts b/c the companies do not store that data (or something like that)....and the email stuff...well...they aren't spying on me based on what I've been told...could there be more to it that could change my mind? Yes. Do I know anything more? No. And that is why this guy is a traitor. hehe Edited June 13, 2013 by SameOldBills
3rdnlng Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 And you'd be wrong. It doesn't meet the legal definition of "treason". . And nobody really knows it was you. Not like it's not hard to reverse-lookup, but...caller, receiver, time of call, and probably some location information (GPS, cell tower). I beg to differ. Purposefully releasing classified information is classified as treason. He didn't just release it to the Guardian, but to the entire world, including our enemies. With that said, the paragraph in bold at the end of this post is where the argument will be made for your opinion. His oath is what might negate that thinking. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Treason The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies. The Treason Clause traces its roots back to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III (1327–1377). This statute prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death. Although this law defined treason to include disloyal and subversive thoughts, it effectively circumscribed the crime as it existed under the Common Law. During the thirteenth century, the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king's will and became a political tool of the Crown. Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements. Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given. The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of Espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason. For example, julius and ethel rosenberg were convicted of espionage, in 1951, for helping the Soviet Union steal atomic secrets from the United States during World War II. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason because the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II. Under Article III a person can levy war against the United States without the use of arms, weapons, or military equipment. Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results. After the U.S. Civil War, for example, all Confederate soldiers were vulnerable to charges of treason, regardless of their role in the secession or insurrection of the Southern states. No treason charges were filed against these soldiers, however, because President Andrew Johnson issued a universal Amnesty. The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent. If a person unwittingly or unintentionally gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during wartime, treason has not occurred. Similarly, a person who pursues a course of action that is intended to benefit the United States but mistakenly helps an enemy is not guilty of treason. Inadvertent disloyalty is never punishable as treason, no matter how much damage the United States suffers.
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 What if the classified info was the identity of deep cover CIA agents, and that release led to them being killed? What if your head was as big as your front door? Would it still fit up your ass? The "information" that he's "shared" isn't about sources or deep cover agents. To be quite honest it doesn't really fit the definition required for classification. It's probably classified to keep what's happened from happening but that's about the only reason. His offense is the equivalent of jaywalking. You're basically accusing him of murder. That's !@#$ing ridiculous. Turn off your talk radio, you dimwit.
DC Tom Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 I beg to differ. Purposefully releasing classified information is classified as treason. He didn't just release it to the Guardian, but to the entire world, including our enemies. With that said, the paragraph in bold at the end of this post is where the argument will be made for your opinion. His oath is what might negate that thinking. http://legal-diction...ary.com/Treason The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies. The Treason Clause traces its roots back to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III (1327–1377). This statute prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death. Although this law defined treason to include disloyal and subversive thoughts, it effectively circumscribed the crime as it existed under the Common Law. During the thirteenth century, the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king's will and became a political tool of the Crown. Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements. Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given. The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of Espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason. For example, julius and ethel rosenberg were convicted of espionage, in 1951, for helping the Soviet Union steal atomic secrets from the United States during World War II. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason because the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II. Under Article III a person can levy war against the United States without the use of arms, weapons, or military equipment. Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results. After the U.S. Civil War, for example, all Confederate soldiers were vulnerable to charges of treason, regardless of their role in the secession or insurrection of the Southern states. No treason charges were filed against these soldiers, however, because President Andrew Johnson issued a universal Amnesty. The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent. If a person unwittingly or unintentionally gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during wartime, treason has not occurred. Similarly, a person who pursues a course of action that is intended to benefit the United States but mistakenly helps an enemy is not guilty of treason. Inadvertent disloyalty is never punishable as treason, no matter how much damage the United States suffers. It's not my opinion, it's fact. There is no legal definition of treason that equates to merely leaking classified info. Hell, what he did doesn't even qualify as espionage. It's "disclosure of classified information to unauthorized persons."
3rdnlng Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 What if your head was as big as your front door? Would it still fit up your ass? The "information" that he's "shared" isn't about sources or deep cover agents. To be quite honest it doesn't really fit the definition required for classification. It's probably classified to keep what's happened from happening but that's about the only reason. His offense is the equivalent of jaywalking. You're basically accusing him of murder. That's !@#$ing ridiculous. Turn off your talk radio, you dimwit. So, any employee of the CIA (or in this case contractor) can decide what is classified or not? My guess is that it's classified because it is a method of sorting through the billions of calls by the NSA and having the ability of finding that one Detroit area number that keeps calling an Islamabad number and then further investigating it. Once the person guilty of the equivalent of "jaywalking" has outed the methods of finding these people they have the opportunity of changing their MO. That's just a side story to why this is serious. It's serious because he took it on his own to decide what was "jaywalking" classified vs. what was "life or death" classified. If your reading comprehension was up to par you'd understand that the example that I gave re outing deep cover agents was simply to give Tom an example of why you can't differentiate severity of guilt by who you actually gave the information to.
dayman Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 If you give information to a news publisher you give it to everyone, including terrorists. That is obvious. Also, the poll contrasts "traitor" with "hero"...so didn't realize legal definitions of treason came into play.
DC Tom Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 If you give information to a news publisher you give it to everyone, including terrorists. That is obvious. Ignoring the letter of the law, ample precedent says otherwise. The only person I can find who's leaked classified information to the "media" and been charged with anything resembling treason is Bradley Manning, and that's a very specious charge brought by an administration that plays fast and loose with the Espionage Act. Also, the poll contrasts "traitor" with "hero"...so didn't realize legal definitions of treason came into play. The definition of "traitor" is "one who commits treason." Your lack of realization isn't my problem.
Recommended Posts