Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor?

[DC Tom]

 

One man's take on Snowden:

 

NSA Fiasco Is a Snowden Snow Job

By Michael Reagan

There is an interesting bit of reverse symbolism in the Edward Snowden case. Snowden releases top-secret National Security Agency documents revealing phone and Internet surveillance taking place in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Fearing prosecution for his multiple breaches of federal law, Snowden takes refuge in China — one of the most repressive nations in the world. In China there is essentially no Internet freedom and security services monitor its subjects from cradle to grave.

It would be like convicted swindler and televangelist Jim Bakker taking refuge in Saudi Arabia rather than face the music in the U.S..

 

What Snowden did — as former U. N. Ambassador John Bolton pointed out in a Newsmax interview — was not leaking to raise a policy dispute. It's quite simply treason. If Snowden had sent the documents to a Chinese security contact in exchange for money, even the Obama administration and Eric "Hands Off" Holder would have no doubt been motivated enough to charge him with spying, just as earlier administrations charged Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen with treason for spying for the Russians.

But federal prosecutors have trouble coming down equally hard on a spy that releases his information to the world in exchange for fame. The media treats it like a bullying Uncle Sam is coming down on an Internet Robin Hood. Reporters presume a government program that collects information — covertly — must be bad. Therefore, Snowden must be a hero.

As a result, Snowden misses out on receiving money in exchange for the secrets, but China still gets the information, along with Russia, Iran, and various jihadists. Meanwhile, Snowden assumes the mantle of Courageous Whistleblower with all the attendant praise from the left and invitations to appear on MSNBC.

Instead of treason, Snowden will be charged with some offense, less than treason, that still carries a lengthy prison sentence, but has neither the shame — nor the potential death — of a treason verdict.

If Snowden is able to dodge extradition and make his home in the People's Republic of China, one thing is certain: His leaking career is over. China takes treason seriously.

The penalty is a bullet in the back of the head and your relatives are presented with a bill for the ammunition.

 

 

IT'S NOT TREASON.

 

Got that from infowars, didn't you?

[TakeYouToTasker]

I have no idea of what your idea of apples to apples comparison is, and if you dispute the statistical validity of US Census data relative to a random 8th grade questionnaire from 1895 then it confirms that all you're interested in is preaching from you faux-libertarian soapbox. No need to discuss any further.

 

And as to the other point, the discussion is how things work under the existing Constitutional framework, not a hypothetical scenario on Klaatu. I used to have a sig before a random act of Rubeo rosened the board - it was a quote from Hamilton - "I have thought it my duty to exhibit things as they are, not as they ought to be." I think it's time to resurrect it.

You have no idea of what my apples to apples comparison is? And you follow it up with another strawman?

 

Dude, you're such an empty suit. You clearly lack the intellectual integrity to hold honest debate, and both your mores and your ideals are inferior. That's the only reason you won't (read: can't) discuss further.

 

As to "the other point" you don't get to dictate what I discuss, when I'm the one who began this discussion, and you interjected, dumping you buckets of bull **** all over an otherwise quality discussion because you lack the decency to continue a polite debate when you can't control the issue. Furthermore, I'm going to go ahead an conduct my argument on the terms that I set forth because a) you responded to something I said, and not the other way around, and b) because I like me more than I like you.

 

Again, if you don't want to be wrong, stop being wrong.

Edited June 14, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[GG]

because I like me more than I like you.

 

I hope for your sake the world never runs out of mirrors.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I hope for your sake the world never runs out of mirrors.

I don't know about that, but with you here we sure are starved for intellectual honesty.

[3rdnlng]

IT'S NOT TREASON.

 

Got that from infowars, didn't you?

 

No, I got it from Reagan Reports that came to me via email. Even you inferred that it would be treason if he had released the info to China or Iran, but since he released it to "The Guardian" it wasn't. My contention is that in the act of releasing the info to the Guardian he in fact released it to our enemies, thus committing treason.

[TakeYouToTasker]

No, I got it from Reagan Reports that came to me via email. Even you inferred that it would be treason if he had released the info to China or Iran, but since he released it to "The Guardian" it wasn't. My contention is that in the act of releasing the info to the Guardian he in fact released it to our enemies, thus committing treason.

So investigative journalism, and the Fourth Estate returning to not abrogating their duties, is treason? This is a horrible standard.

[DC Tom]

My contention is that in the act of releasing the info to the Guardian he in fact released it to our enemies, thus committing treason.

 

You're an idiot. Your contention is WRONG AS A MATTER OF LAW BOTH WRITTEN AND ESTABLISHED BY COURT PRECEDENT.

[3rdnlng]

So investigative journalism, and the Fourth Estate returning to not abrogating their duties, is treason? This is a horrible standard.

 

I didn't say that The Guardian did anything wrong (even if they were a U.S. media company it wouldn't be wrong). Edward Snowden made the decision as to what was classified information and released it. That wasn't his decision to make. I wonder what the next piece of classified information will be leaked, and for what reason?

 

I fully understand your concerns about the 4th Amendment not being adhered to. I don't want the government to have the ability to figure out if I'm calling my neighbors wife every morning when he leaves for work, or if I place bets with a bookie 3 times a week. I do want them to be able to put two and two together when it comes to terrorism though. I guess I need to know more about the program though to come down on either side. Regardless, Snowden committed treason and is a traitor.

 

You're an idiot. Your contention is WRONG AS A MATTER OF LAW BOTH WRITTEN AND ESTABLISHED BY COURT PRECEDENT.

 

So, I point out to you where you've contradicted yourself and you answer by calling me names and shouting something without substantiating it? Not exactly your best work, but then again, how would we know?

[DC Tom]

So, I point out to you where you've contradicted yourself and you answer by calling me names and shouting something without substantiating it? Not exactly your best work, but then again, how would we know?

 

I haven't contradicted myself. I've been saying it all along: not treason, by law and precedent. And that's why you're an idiot: you're arguing with the law and the courts, and think your counterfactual contention is somehow valid. It's not.

 

And why do I have to substantiate a fact???? Look it up.

[3rdnlng]

I haven't contradicted myself. I've been saying it all along: not treason, by law and precedent. And that's why you're an idiot: you're arguing with the law and the courts, and think your counterfactual contention is somehow valid. It's not.

 

And why do I have to substantiate a fact???? Look it up.

 

Earlier in this thread I and others gave you a definition of "traitor" and "treason" and showed you why he committed treason. All you have done is state that it wasn't treason according to the "law and courts". Nowhere have you substantiated that or proven any "facts". Because you say it's so, it's a fact?

 

Have you ever tried to win an argument by reason rather than trying to hit the other person over the head with a club?

[K-9]

Earlier in this thread I and others gave you a definition of "traitor" and "treason" and showed you why he committed treason. All you have done is state that it wasn't treason according to the "law and courts". Nowhere have you substantiated that or proven any "facts". Because you say it's so, it's a fact?

 

Have you ever tried to win an argument by reason rather than trying to hit the other person over the head with a club?

 

I'll ask again: where is the adherence to the enemy?

[3rdnlng]

I'll ask again: where is the adherence to the enemy?

 

Are you trying to say that "adherence to the enemy" is an absolute necessity?

[DC Tom]

Earlier in this thread I and others gave you a definition of "traitor" and "treason" and showed you why he committed treason.

 

And you were wrong.

 

All you have done is state that it wasn't treason according to the "law and courts". Nowhere have you substantiated that or proven any "facts". Because you say it's so, it's a fact?

 

No...it's a fact because that's what the law and precedent say. Period.

 

Have you ever tried to win an argument by reason rather than trying to hit the other person over the head with a club?

 

We're not having an argument. An 'argument' would require you to have a valid point of view. You don't. You're just wrong.

[K-9]

Are you trying to say that "adherence to the enemy" is an absolute necessity?

 

For him to be charged with, tried for and convicted of treason, yes.

 

I believe Gadahn was the first person to be charged with treason since WWII. There's a reason it's so rare.

[DC Tom]

For him to be charged with, tried for and convicted of treason, yes.

 

I believe Gadahn was the first person to be charged with treason since WWII. There's a reason it's so rare.

 

The Rosenbergs?

 

3rd things his opinion based on wild-ass guesses trumps the law. If he'd do just a little reading, we wouldn't have to keep repeating ourselves.

[K-9]

The Rosenbergs?

 

3rd things his opinion based on wild-ass guesses trumps the law. If he'd do just a little reading, we wouldn't have to keep repeating ourselves.

 

The Rosenbergs were convicted of espionage. To my knowledge, charges of treason were never brought. Which makes sense. It's a helluva lot easier to satisfy that burden than the stricter Consitutional requirements for treason. While everyone is arguing semantics, it may comfort some to know that if/when Snowden is ever tried and convicted, he'll go to prision for most of the rest of his life, most likely.

[dayman]

The Rosenbergs were convicted of espionage. To my knowledge, charges of treason were never brought. Which makes sense. It's a helluva lot easier to satisfy that burden than the stricter Consitutional requirements for treason. While everyone is arguing semantics, it may comfort some to know that if/when Snowden is ever tried and convicted, he'll go to prision for most of the rest of his life, most likely.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKdocYeSqTA

[3rdnlng]

For him to be charged with, tried for and convicted of treason, yes.

 

I believe Gadahn was the first person to be charged with treason since WWII. There's a reason it's so rare.

 

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.

[Cinga]

Y'all are too focused on the who, and not enough on the what....

 

The NSA, an extension of our Government, has been accumulating data, and possibly eavesdropping on the citizens of the United States...

 

IF THAT IS TRUE, it is such a violation of the Constitution, as to make Snowden insignificant to the entire case. My wife asked me if I thought Snowden was a traitor, and was shocked when I told her "I don't care"....

 

Look, as I said, if what he alleges is true, there are much, much, bigger fish to fry than him. Anyone involved in this has violated the Constitution, particularly Amendments 4, 5, and 10...

 

No, I don't whether Snowden is brought to trial or not as a traitor... The line in front of him should be too long to worry about him....

[DC Tom]

The Rosenbergs were convicted of espionage. To my knowledge, charges of treason were never brought. Which makes sense. It's a helluva lot easier to satisfy that burden than the stricter Consitutional requirements for treason. While everyone is arguing semantics, it may comfort some to know that if/when Snowden is ever tried and convicted, he'll go to prision for most of the rest of his life, most likely.

 

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.