Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor?

[3rdnlng]

And if Ames, Walker, and Hanssen weren't charged with treason, Snowden's not going to be. And apparently 3rd's never heard of Daniel Ellsberg.

 

How in Hell's name does the Daniel Ellsberg case have any pertinence here?

[DC Tom]

How in Hell's name does the Daniel Ellsberg case have any pertinence here?

 

 

Someone else explain it to him.

[3rdnlng]

 

Someone else explain it to him.

 

No, it needs to be explained to you. The only reason Ellsberg got off was due to government malfeasance. If not for that, he'd still be in prison. You still have not explained why the bad guy here is not really the bad guy, but the hero. Your bs reminds me of an inept Jay Carney.

[K-9]

This from a link in Post #15 of this thread:

 

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.

 

I saw that upthread and think it is imcomplete. We can rule out Snowden levying war against the US. And I'm still looking for the enemy he has adhered himself to. Not to mention the government still needs two independent witnesses against him in order to bring a charge of treason. And I'm not talking about a couple of coworkers at Booz-Allan that saw him making copies but witnesses to his actual adherence to an enemy at war with the United States. No chance in hell he will ever get charged with treason because any prosecutor would know what's required for the charge and what precedent has already been established.

 

But you can rest easy, what he did is illegal and like I said, if/when he's tried and convicted he'll most likely end up spending most of his life in jail.

[3rdnlng]

I saw that upthread and think it is imcomplete. We can rule out Snowden levying war against the US. And I'm still looking for the enemy he has adhered himself to. Not to mention the government still needs two independent witnesses against him in order to bring a charge of treason. And I'm not talking about a couple of coworkers at Booz-Allan that saw him making copies but witnesses to his actual adherence to an enemy at war with the United States. No chance in hell he will ever get charged with treason because any prosecutor would know what's required for the charge and what precedent has already been established.

 

But you can rest easy, what he did is illegal and like I said, if/when he's tried and convicted he'll most likely end up spending most of his life in jail.

 

The fact that he released classified information and admitted it is enough to charge him with treason. Will that happen? I doubt it. I even posted an article by Michael Reagan basically saying that. This whole discussion started when Tom stated or inferred that it wasn't treason because he released the info to "The Guardian" but it would be if he had given the info to China or Iran. I called him out on his reasoning and he convienently ignores his prior post and throws out canards like "I'm right", "it's a fact", "it's the law", "precedence", "Daniel Ellsberg" but nothing to substantiate his bullschit. In fact, truth be told, no one has backed up their opposing position with anything. Not a quote, a legal opinion or a court case.

[K-9]

The fact that he released classified information and admitted it is enough to charge him with treason. Will that happen? I doubt it. I even posted an article by Michael Reagan basically saying that. This whole discussion started when Tom stated or inferred that it wasn't treason because he released the info to "The Guardian" but it would be if he had given the info to China or Iran. I called him out on his reasoning and he convienently ignores his prior post and throws out canards like "I'm right", "it's a fact", "it's the law", "precedence", "Daniel Ellsberg" but nothing to substantiate his bullschit. In fact, truth be told, no one has backed up their opposing position with anything. Not a quote, a legal opinion or a court case.

 

It isn't. Must have the two witnesses and be able to show the adherence to an enemy at war with the United States. And then there is the question of intent, which must also be present.

 

As to backing this stuff up, the information is out there should one have the time and inclination to look for it.

Edited June 15, 2013 by K-9

[3rdnlng]

It isn't. Must have the two witnesses and be able to show the adherence to an enemy at war with the United States. And then there is the question of intent, which must also be present.

 

As to backing this stuff up, the information is out there should one have the time and inclination to look for it.

 

One last time. Releasing classified information is giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy. I've posted the background for that-----twice here. Having two witnesses is not necessary when the culprit confesses. Now, as far as me looking up information to back up your claims..........ever hear of Jersey Sue?

[K-9]

One last time. Releasing classified information is giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy. I've posted the background for that-----twice here. Having two witnesses is not necessary when the culprit confesses. Now, as far as me looking up information to back up your claims..........ever hear of Jersey Sue?

 

Snowden has confessed to giving aid and comfort to what enemy and in what court of law? And was this before or after his intent was made clear?

 

We have law makers from both sides of the aisle claimiing "treason" and "traitor." Why is it then, that no federal prosecutor will bring that charge? Might it be that they don't so easily dismiss what the law and it's court precedence have to say on the matter? Fortunately for the rest of us, they aren't so willing to simply accept a page-1 google search as a basis to bring perhaps the most serious charge on the books.

 

Jersey Sue? I'll go off the board and take arcane forum references for a hundred, Jack.

Edited June 15, 2013 by K-9

[dayman]

3rd is correct. He aided the enemy by telling them what we are doing. He also aided the American people by telling them what we are doing. Both a traitor and a hero. But mainly a traitor until it is proven that something truly outrageous is happening (which it has not bene proven yet)

[3rdnlng]

Snowden has confessed to giving aid and comfort to what enemy and in what court of law? And was this before or after his intent was made clear?

 

We have law makers from both sides of the aisle claimiing "treason" and "traitor." Why is it then, that no federal prosecutor will bring that charge? Might it be that they don't so easily dismiss what the law and it's court precedence have to say on the matter? Fortunately for the rest of us, they aren't so willing to simply accept a page-1 google search as a basis to bring perhaps the most serious charge on the books.

 

Jersey Sue? I'll go off the board and take arcane forum references for a hundred, Jack.

 

Now you're just getting ridiculous. There could be numerous reasons why they haven't charged him with anything yet. Also, I never stated that they would charge him with treason, I said I thought he was guilty of that. As far as enemies go, I'd venture to say we are in a state of war with the Taliban, Al Qaeda and anyone of the poor saps on the "drone list". Furthermore, he has publicly confessed to leaking the information.

 

As far as Jersey Sue goes, she's the one that asked the forum here to do her homework, much like you and Tom have done in this thread.

[Rob's House]

3rd is correct. He aided the enemy by telling them what we are doing. He also aided the American people by telling them what we are doing. Both a traitor and a hero. But mainly a traitor until it is proven that something truly outrageous is happening (which it has not bene proven yet)

Something like Jem? I think Prism fits the bill.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Rob's House

[K-9]

Now you're just getting ridiculous. There could be numerous reasons why they haven't charged him with anything yet. Also, I never stated that they would charge him with treason, I said I thought he was guilty of that. As far as enemies go, I'd venture to say we are in a state of war with the Taliban, Al Qaeda and anyone of the poor saps on the "drone list". Furthermore, he has publicly confessed to leaking the information.

 

As far as Jersey Sue goes, she's the one that asked the forum here to do her homework, much like you and Tom have done in this thread.

 

Right. I insist on boiling it down to what matters in a LEGAL sense and then you cop out by saying "I never said they would charge him with treason." He's guilty of treason but they won't charge him with it. Getting ridiculous indeed.

 

And I've already done enough homework on this subject. I just don't happen to stop when I come across a page-1 google hit that supports my position. Some of us just aren't that lazy or intractable.

[3rdnlng]

Right. I insist on boiling it down to what matters in a LEGAL sense and then you cop out by saying "I never said they would charge him with treason." He's guilty of treason but they won't charge him with it. Getting ridiculous indeed.

 

And I've already done enough homework on this subject. I just don't happen to stop when I come across a page-1 google hit that supports my position. Some of us just aren't that lazy or intractable.

 

I even posted an article by Michael Reagan that speculated that he would not be charged with treason. So don't say now that I'm copping out. I also posted some background on why I believed his act was treasonous. Neither you or Tom posted anything to back up your belief that it wasn't treasonous. Basically what you said was for me to look up your proof in order to convince me of your position. So, I'm now the lazy one? I fully expected to have an intellectual conversation on this topic and would have been more than willing to change my position if one of you guys could actually convince me that my position was wrong. Sorry, but saying "you're wrong, look it up" doesn't do much to convince me. You seem like an ok guy and I appreciate that you've kept it civil. Tom, on the other hand is an arrogant prick who deserves to be shipwrecked on a barren island with Rosie O'Donnell.

[K-9]

I even posted an article by Michael Reagan that speculated that he would not be charged with treason. So don't say now that I'm copping out. I also posted some background on why I believed his act was treasonous. Neither you or Tom posted anything to back up your belief that it wasn't treasonous. Basically what you said was for me to look up your proof in order to convince me of your position. So, I'm now the lazy one? I fully expected to have an intellectual conversation on this topic and would have been more than willing to change my position if one of you guys could actually convince me that my position was wrong. Sorry, but saying "you're wrong, look it up" doesn't do much to convince me. You seem like an ok guy and I appreciate that you've kept it civil. Tom, on the other hand is an arrogant prick who deserves to be shipwrecked on a barren island with Rosie O'Donnell.

 

You don't need convincing from me or anyone else. It sounds, from the tone of your own posts, that you need to convince yourself. On one hand you say he committed treason and on the other hand you don't think he'll be charged with that. Why? Certainly you' ve been reading the many opinions from Constitutional law experts the last few days citing the myriad of reasons as to why his crime doesn't meet the threshold so I don't see the need to bore you with linking those articles.

[3rdnlng]

You don't need convincing from me or anyone else. It sounds, from the tone of your own posts, that you need to convince yourself. On one hand you say he committed treason and on the other hand you don't think he'll be charged with that. Why? Certainly you' ve been reading the many opinions from Constitutional law experts the last few days citing the myriad of reasons as to why his crime doesn't meet the threshold so I don't see the need to bore you with linking those articles.

 

Why the reluctance to show me what ya got? This is after all a discussion board. I happen to think that there are enough people who either sympathize with him or hate the NSA program that he devulged that they'll go with a lessor charge and avoid having to make the serious sentencing decisions if he was convicted of treason. Afterall, this isn't an administration that savors hard decisions. Anyway, it will be a political decision and I can't see a life or death sentence being on the table.

[K-9]

Why the reluctance to show me what ya got? This is after all a discussion board. I happen to think that there are enough people who either sympathize with him or hate the NSA program that he devulged that they'll go with a lessor charge and avoid having to make the serious sentencing decisions if he was convicted of treason. Afterall, this isn't an administration that savors hard decisions. Anyway, it will be a political decision and I can't see a life or death sentence being on the table.

 

So, political expedience will be the reason he won't face treason charges vs. the very restrictive nature of Article 3 and the very deliberate burdens of proof instead? He won't face charges of treason simply because he has struck a chord with some constituents rather than the legal precedents already established? How about cases like Lindh and Ellsberg, as well as others since WWII? Some of the most hated figures in the country giving politicians ample ammunition to demand they be charged with treason and yet they weren't. Why is that?

 

Treason is the ONLY law specifically cited in the Constitution and it's restrictions are there for the sole reason of preventing the government from bringing these types of charges against political enemies. If our founders were familiar with anything, it was treason.

 

You won't have any problems finding quotes from Turley and other Constitutional law experts relating to the Snowden case. They are out there this week and I assume you've read them. If they haven't made an impression, try reading this:

 

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jwh/jwh_treason_6.htm

 

Given your trumpeting of "aid and comfort" as your main reasons that he commited treason, perhaps you'll gain an appreciation for "intent" and

"overt acts" as requirements as well.

[Cinga]

Now you're just getting ridiculous. There could be numerous reasons why they haven't charged him with anything yet. Also, I never stated that they would charge him with treason, I said I thought he was guilty of that. As far as enemies go, I'd venture to say we are in a state of war with the Taliban, Al Qaeda and anyone of the poor saps on the "drone list". Furthermore, he has publicly confessed to leaking the information.

 

As far as Jersey Sue goes, she's the one that asked the forum here to do her homework, much like you and Tom have done in this thread.

 

You, and everone else, need to get off this traitor kick.... Wanna know why they haven't charged him yet???

 

Here:

 

18 USC § 2382

 

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

 

You see... IF THE ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE!!!! Regardless of his job, or clearance, or any other thing, what the NSA is doing, violates the Constitution, PERIOD!!!!

 

And IF the NSA is violating the Constitution, Snowden, along with anyone else that has knowledge of this, faces up to 7 years in prison if they DON"T report it!!!

[K-9]

You, and everone else, need to get off this traitor kick.... Wanna know why they haven't charged him yet???

 

Here:

 

18 USC § 2382

 

 

 

You see... IF THE ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE!!!! Regardless of his job, or clearance, or any other thing, what the NSA is doing, violates the Constitution, PERIOD!!!!

 

And IF the NSA is violating the Constitution, Snowden, along with anyone else that has knowledge of this, faces up to 7 years in prison if they DON"T report it!!!

 

Not a snowball's chance. But good luck pressing your case in the US court system.

 

The reason Snowden hasn't been charged is because it's an ongoing invesgtigation and ducks are being put in a row.

[Cinga]

Not a snowball's chance. But good luck pressing your case in the US court system.

 

The reason Snowden hasn't been charged is because it's an ongoing invesgtigation and ducks are being put in a row.

 

I get it... I know the law will probably be ignored once again...

 

That however does not justify that so many people are so willing to throw their hands up in surrender and say, "Good luck pressing your case....."

 

As I posted earlier... The issue is not Snowden at all, he is a mere distraction!!!! The real issue is that the government was doing this in the first place...

 

Complacency much??

 

And

[3rdnlng]

http://www.1911encyc...dia.org/Treason

 

United States

 

The law is based upon that of England. By art. 3, s. 3 of the constitution " treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason; but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted." By art. 2, s. 4 impeachment for and conviction of treason is a ground for removing the president, vice-president and other civil officers. The punishment by an act of 1790 was declared to be death by hanging. But during the Civil War an act (July 17, 1862) was passed, providing that the punishment should be death, or, at the discretion of the court, imprisonment at hard labour for not less than five years, and a fine of not less than io,000 dollars to be levied on the real and personal property of the offender, in addition to disability to hold any office under the United States. The act of 1862 and other acts also deal with the crimes of inciting or engaging in rebellion or insurrection, criminal correspondence with foreign governments in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the government of the United States, seditions, conspiracy, recruiting soldiers or sailors and enlistment to serve against the United States. The act of 1790 further provides for the delivery to the prisoner of a copy of the indictment and a list of the jurors, for defence by counsel, and for the finding of the indictment within three years after the commission of the treason (see Story, Constitution of the United States, Rev. Stat. U.S. p. 1041). Treason against the United States cannot be inquired into by any state court, but the states may, and some of them have, their own constitutions and legislation as to treasons committed against themselves, generally following the lines of the constitution and legislation of the United States. In some cases there are differences which are worth notice. Thus the constitution of Massachusetts, pt. 1, § 25, declares that no subject ought in any case or in any time to be declared guilty of treason by the legislature. The same provision is contained in the constitutions of Vermont, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Alabama and others. In some states the crime of treason cannot be pardoned; in others, as in New York, it may be pardoned by the legislature, and the governor may suspend the sentence until the end of the session of the legislature next following conviction. In some states a person convicted of treason is disqualified for exercising the franchise. In New York conviction carries with it forfeiture of real estate for the life of the convict and of his goods and chattels.

 

 

http://www.discovert...=153&type=issue

 

 

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or, in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” (Constitution of the United States of America, Art. III, Sec. 3, Par. 1)

Not until 1945 did the Supreme Court of the United States review a treason conviction. Cramer v. United States was the first. Seven other cases followed, two in the Supreme Court and five in United States Courts of Appeal: Haupt v. United States,[ii] Chandler v. United States,[iii] Gillars v. United States,[iv] Best v. United States,[v] Burgman v. United States,[vi] D’Aquino v. United States,[vii] and Kawakita v. United States.[viii]

 

Cumulatively, in these eight decisions arising from World War II, the Supreme Court of the United States established that for a prosecutor to take an “aid and comfort” treason indictment to a jury he must prove four elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) an overt act, (2) testified to by two witnesses, (3) manifesting an intent to betray the United States (which can be inferred from the overt act itself), (4) the act providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

 

The first three elements of the crime are not difficult to identify because they are objective. Hiding money belonging to a saboteur, surveilling a defense plant, broadcasting enemy propaganda, and torturing American prisoners of war are all manifestly overt acts. Two-witness proof—for example, from Tomoya Kawakita’s victims in Japan and Jane Fonda’s American POWs in North Vietnam—is also objective. As is the intent to betray, in cases where rogue CIA and FBI agents spied for the Soviet Union.

 

The final element of a treason case is that the defendant’s conduct provided “aid and comfort” to an enemy of the United States. In Cramer, the Supreme Court observed that “[t]he very minimum function that an overt act must perform in a treason prosecution is that it shows sufficient action by the accused, in its setting, to sustain a finding that the accused actually gave aid and comfort to the enemy.”[ix] The same was true in Chandler where the First Circuit Court of Appeals had to decide whether the prosecution had adduced enough evidence from which the jury could reasonably have concluded that Chandler’s overt act(s) had provided the constitutionally requisite “aid and comfort” to the Nazi regime. Chandler claimed that not one of the alleged overt acts—by themselves—provided aid and comfort to the Nazi’s goals.

 

The Court of Appeals disagreed:

 

Possibly the overt acts, viewed in rigid isolation and apart from their setting, would not indicate that they afforded aid and comfort to the enemy. But viewed in their setting, which is set forth above . . . they certainly take on incriminating significance....................................

 

 

[i]So we know from previously posted material that releasing classified information is considered "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy. The questions are do we have an enemy, and did he know that releasing that information would do us harm? I can't imagine that he didn't recognize that what he was doing wouldn't help out our enemies, which we have. Since he openly confessed to leaking classified material, what else is needed to charge him with treason?

Edited June 16, 2013 by 3rdnlng