Conquer Club

John Boehner called NSA leaker Edward Snowden a “traitor”. But is that accurate?

In the United States treason is specifically named and described in the Constitution, the only crime thus defined in the Constitution. It reads like this-

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

To be guilty of treason one must be a citizen and be levying war against the US or giving aid to her enemies.

Snowden gave classified information to the press. Is the press our enemy? Are they waging war against the US?

Snowden isn't guilty of treason, not even close. Sedition, espionage, passing classified information, a case can certainly be made for that, but not treason.

It's funny, though, Snowden may be guilty of sedition (which is defined in part as subversion of a constitution) but what the NSA has been doing is also a subversion of the constitution and thus are equally guilty of subversion as is any and all who subvert the US Constitution. If we want to get technical.

So, do you think this Snowden fellow is a traitor?

Obviously not.

But unfortunately the winners write the history books. And with the real traitors holding the reins of power, we know how they'll write this book...

The government is working to make it illegal for a person to inform the public of the government acting illegally. They praise it when a private sector person blows the whistle on illegal business activities, but they turn around and make it illegal for the same whistleblowing to happen within the government.

patches70 wrote:John Boehner called NSA leaker Edward Snowden a “traitor”. But is that accurate?

In the United States treason is specifically named and described in the Constitution, the only crime thus defined in the Constitution. It reads like this-

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

To be guilty of treason one must be a citizen and be levying war against the US or giving aid to her enemies.

Snowden gave classified information to the press. Is the press our enemy? Are they waging war against the US?

Snowden isn't guilty of treason, not even close. Sedition, espionage, passing classified information, a case can certainly be made for that, but not treason.

It's funny, though, Snowden may be guilty of sedition (which is defined in part as subversion of a constitution) but what the NSA has been doing is also a subversion of the constitution and thus are equally guilty of subversion as is any and all who subvert the US Constitution. If we want to get technical.

So, do you think this Snowden fellow is a traitor?

Under the constitution, sure. His actions aid the enemy, but by how much? Who knows. I doubt it helps the enemy that much. Even up to 9/11, Al-Qaeda knew that it took the NSA 72 hours to translate their phone calls--and that wasn't released to the public.

I call bullshit, but this is how the government treats whistleblowers of its own bureaus (in general).

This is why I am converting to an all bamboo lifestyle. Everything I own will be made out of bamboo. I mean, you can't hack bamboo! Or if you do, it'll just grow right back fast jack.


--Andy

he should be hung

karel wrote:he should be hung

why?

he is a traitor...enough said

patches70 wrote:John Boehner called NSA leaker Edward Snowden a “traitor”. But is that accurate?

No, not in my opinion. Is he a criminal? Probably. But that doesn't mean I consider what he did to be wrong, either. I will say this for him...he has handled this in a very meticulous way. He planned his moves out pretty carefully, I think.

patches70 wrote:To be guilty of treason one must be a citizen and be levying war against the US or giving aid to her enemies.

In fairness, I am starting to think that our government might consider us as their enemies. <smile>

Also, what Dukasaur said about "the winners and history books".

karel wrote:he is a traitor...enough said

No, that really isn't "enough said"...why specifically do you believe his actions were traitorous?

karel wrote:he is a traitor...enough said

So, anyone who leaks classified information is a traitor and should be hung?

*hanged

curtains are hung.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:*hanged
curtains are hung.

While I know you're right, why IS that? I mean...aren't they both in the act of hanging? What's the entymological rationale for the difference?

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:*hanged

curtains are hung.

-TG

Sorry TA1lGUNN3R, I think he should be hung like a curtain. That way the wind will whip him around, and the sun will beat its rays down on him. Pure torture.


--Andy

Woodruff wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:*hanged
curtains are hung.

While I know you're right, why IS that? I mean...aren't they both in the act of hanging? What's the entymological rationale for the difference?

I'm not sure. I just assumed it's because one refers to a person and the other an object, just like how one capitalizes names and such.

According to Grammar Girl (useful site for these kinds of questions), it's because there were two different words for "hang" in Old English and then some Norse words mixed everything up.

-TG

BBS is right; technically he is a traitor. However the assistance he gave to the enemy is likely very small.

edit: note that I have not really been following the bulk of the NSA stuff nor have a great interest. I am just basing my comment on the definition: he gave information to the press; the press made that information public; the USA's enemies have access to public information... QED.

Lootifer wrote:BBS is right; technically he is a traitor. However the assistance he gave to the enemy is likely very small.

edit: note that I have not really been following the bulk of the NSA stuff nor have a great interest. I am just basing my comment on the definition: he gave information to the press; the press made that information public; the USA's enemies have access to public information... QED.

Under this reasoning anybody can be charged for just about anything. You're a store clerk, you sell some sudafed to a guy. He uses it to cook meth and sells it. Now you're guilty of manufacturing and delivery of narcotics. QED.

Lootifer wrote:BBS is right; technically he is a traitor. However the assistance he gave to the enemy is likely very small.

Which of our enemies did he aid? I don't see where he could have aided them with this information. The enemy is almost certainly as aware it was going on as I was.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

Lootifer wrote:BBS is right; technically he is a traitor. However the assistance he gave to the enemy is likely very small.

edit: note that I have not really been following the bulk of the NSA stuff nor have a great interest. I am just basing my comment on the definition: he gave information to the press; the press made that information public; the USA's enemies have access to public information... QED.

Under this reasoning anybody can be charged for just about anything. You're a store clerk, you sell some sudafed to a guy. He uses it to cook meth and sells it. Now you're guilty of manufacturing and delivery of narcotics. QED.

Pretty much (though I think your analogy is a bit of a stretch - your analogy implies that the press are also traitors, which I dont believe they are).

Its like the good bigotry/bad bigotry thing. I personally would call this good-traitorism (as the public good caused by releasing the information far outweighs the increased threat to the public).

Gotta think about it like the government does.



Yes, this traitor was aiding the enemy. The enemy being the rights of the American people, and he sold out the government.

Are there any polls on this yet? And by "polls" I don't mean CC polls where one of the options involves baby cats.

I wonder if any politicians will change their minds based on polling data. If I was an incumbent Congressperson I would be treading lightly on this (although I suppose Boehner and Reid don't have anything to worry about).

Night Strike wrote:The government is working to make it illegal for a person to inform the public of the government acting illegally. They praise it when a private sector person blows the whistle on illegal business activities, but they turn around and make it illegal for the same whistleblowing to happen within the government.

Am I in danger of agreeing with NS????

notyou2 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:The government is working to make it illegal for a person to inform the public of the government acting illegally. They praise it when a private sector person blows the whistle on illegal business activities, but they turn around and make it illegal for the same whistleblowing to happen within the government.

Am I in danger of agreeing with NS????

Hey! Americans actually can put aside their smaller differences and focus on a fundamental similarity!

An Ideal of Hope!

Edward Snowden is most definitely NOT a traitor to me.

He is protecting our Fourth Amendment rights. Because we have a right to know what data our government is collecting on us.

If we, as a society, cannot fight extremists and terrorism with reason and due process, we lose - we lose what we stand for.

Phatscotty wrote: Yes, this traitor was aiding the enemy. The enemy being the rights of the American people, and he sold out the government.

What Snowden did is not responsible whistleblowing. Whistleblower laws, in this case, would protect executive branch employees for reporting this to Congress. Leaking a report to the press at large is not the same as whistleblowing, and it is a gross negligence of his duties.