What is a four letter word that starts with "F" yes it's synonymous with "F*cked" and that word is "FISA"... Get and you are "f"ed, no recourse, no fighting it, just do it.
Thus Apple is synonymous with privacy, until they get "F"ed a FISA order... Luckily, if you can call it that, it also can not be publicized thus you can be super private and slip out the odd info bit , due to the FISA.
Nope. People feel he's a traitor. Traitors should be punished.
Just like murderers should rot in hell.
Some small number of people may hold such views, however the vast majority of uninformed Americans don't even know who is Snowden, what he did or why he did it.
Just watch this recent John Oliver video (caution, graphic language and subject matter):
Leaking classified information in itself isn't treason. Leaking classified information to benefit our enemies is treason.
Ah, so as a legal expert, can you clarify whether this definition requires the perpetrator to knowingly and intentionally benefit our enemies, or is any action that somehow results in a benefit to our enemies defined as treason and therefore punishable by death? Or can you cite any actual evidence that Snowden shared any military information with enemies?
Then there's the question of whether Snowden broke an oath of confidentiality.
Quote:
"To begin with, did Snowden sign “an oath…not to disclose classified information”?He says that he did not, and that does not appear to have been contradicted. Snowden told the Washington Post’s Barton Gellman that the document he signed was Standard Form 312, a contract in which the signatory says he will “accept” the terms, rather than swearing to them. By signing it, Snowden agreed that he was aware that there were federal laws against disclosing classified information. But the penalties for violating this agreement alone are civil: for example, the government can go after any book royalties he might get for publishing secrets."
So violating the above oath isn't even a crime; it's merely a civil offense. They can sue him. That's it.
What else?
Quote:
Snowden had taken an oath—the Oath of Office, given to all federal employees when he was an employee earlier, for the C.I.A.:
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Some would argue that he violated this oath in revealing what he did; but Snowden told Gellman that the revelations were how he kept it—protecting the Constitution from the officials at the N.S.A., which was assaulting it.
Now let's turn back to the actual letter of the law on treason, cited below...
Quote:
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Can you cite evidence that Snowden levied war against the US?
Can you cite evidence that Snowden "adhered" to any US enemies, that is, that he joined them or gave them aid by sharing US military secrets with them?
What we know is that Snowden used automated web-crawling software to "scrape" the NSA's systems. The information that's been made publicly available contained no military secrets. Further, all the accusations that Snowden took military secrets are unsubstantiated, based on "fears" and "assumptions" rather than any actual evidence. Snowden had extensive security clearance and, based on this, intelligence officials simply assume that he took copies of everything he had access to.
“Everything that he touched, we assume that he took,” said General Flynn, “We assume the worst case.”
So in reality, it's unclear how many documents, pertaining to surveillance and otherwise, he ended up taking. While it's expected that intelligence officials assume the worse when evaluating situations like this, there is zero evidence to suggest Snowden ever intended to take military secrets, that he wanted to help foreign adversaries such as Russia or China, or that he's shared any confidential information with anyone but a select number of respected journalists, and even then, only after taking extensive measures to ensure security.
We don't know all the facts. All we know from this situation is that the government has violated US citizens' constitutionally protected civil liberties and repeatedly lied about it to Congress. We've yet to see a single instance where Snowden has lied about anything.
It's the current law. He broke American laws. Why would other countries' laws apply?
They don't. That's not what I'm saying. You're saying that execution is the punishment of treason and questioning how that is intolerant. Because it's the freaking death penalty is why, the very epitome of intolerance - we are killing you for what you have done. The fact that it is law is not much of a guiding principle to whether its tolerant or not since, as in the examples I gave, or indeed examples from the US's history, laws can often be highly intolerant.
Moreover, there is no proof that Snowden knowingly aided the enemy. He may have done so through carelessness, the jury is out on that, and if so, that warrants some censure. But it isn't treason, and it does not warrant the death penalty, no matter how the American people "feel" about it. How the public "feels" is not how justice is administered, not in a civilised country.
Ah, so as a legal expert, can you clarify whether this definition requires the perpetrator to knowingly and intentionally benefit our enemies, or is any action that somehow results in a benefit to our enemies defined as treason and therefore punishable by death? Or can you cite any actual evidence that Snowden shared any military information with enemies?
Then there's the question of whether Snowden broke an oath of confidentiality.
So violating the above oath isn't even a crime; it's merely a civil offense. They can sue him. That's it.
What else?
Some would argue that he violated this oath in revealing what he did; but Snowden told Gellman that the revelations were how he kept it—protecting the Constitution from the officials at the N.S.A., which was assaulting it.
Now let's turn back to the actual letter of the law on treason, cited below...
Can you cite evidence that Snowden levied war against the US?
Can you cite evidence that Snowden "adhered" to any US enemies, that is, that he joined them or gave them aid by sharing US military secrets with them?
What we know is that Snowden used automated web-crawling software to "scrape" the NSA's systems. The information that's been made publicly available contained no military secrets. Further, all the accusations that Snowden took military secrets are unsubstantiated, based on "fears" and "assumptions" rather than any actual evidence. Snowden had extensive security clearance and, based on this, intelligence officials simply assume that he took copies of everything he had access to.
“Everything that he touched, we assume that he took,” said General Flynn, “We assume the worst case.”
So in reality, it's unclear how many documents, pertaining to surveillance and otherwise, he ended up taking. While it's expected that intelligence officials assume the worse when evaluating situations like this, there is zero evidence to suggest Snowden ever intended to take military secrets, that he wanted to help foreign adversaries such as Russia or China, or that he's shared any confidential information with anyone but a select number of respected journalists, and even then, only after taking extensive measures to ensure security.
We don't know all the facts. All we know from this situation is that the government has violated US citizens' constitutionally protected civil liberties and repeatedly lied about it to Congress. We've yet to see a single instance where Snowden has lied about anything.
Are you saying he did not leak information about NSA spying on computers in China and Hong Kong?
Exposing direct military secrets and exposing our intelligence efforts in other countries are one and the same in terms of "treason."
The death penalty for this is rather harsh though. I would not support the death penalty for his actions in regards exposing NSA efforts outside of the US. Exposing the NSA efforts inside the US is laudable. Exposing other NSA efforts outside the US is not.
Exposing direct military secrets and exposing our intelligence efforts in other countries are one and the same in terms of "treason."
The death penalty for this is rather harsh though. I would not support the death penalty for his actions in regards exposing NSA efforts outside of the US. Exposing the NSA efforts inside the US is laudable. Exposing other NSA efforts outside the US is not.
I don't defend Snowden's revelations about US spying on foreign targets, military or civilian, at least not for targets such as China and Russia. But let's face it, it's no secret that the US and China routinely spy on each other - or rather, "monitor each other’s computer networks for national security reasons." I suspect this was an attempt to disclose relatively safe, already known information to discourage Chinese officials from handing over Snowden to the US while he was in Hong Kong.
Speaking of leaks of classified information, it seems that some members of Congress apply a double standard to the question of classified leaks when it might serve their agenda to publicly discredit Snowden.
According to Snowden's attorney, Ben Wizner, "The intelligence community leaked classified information [last year] in order to excoriate Edward Snowden for leaking classified information. The difference is that Snowden provided information [to] journalists to inform the public about the government's actions, and the government leaked information in order to misinform the public about his."
Quote:
"In a paragraph on page three of the documents DIA turned over to VICE News, "DIA describes the classified discussions [with Congress] concerning the impact of the Snowden disclosures on military plans and operations. The paragraph refers to the assessment of the scope of that impact, and thus warrants classification. Disclosure of the information would degrade the military capabilities of the United States ... "
"After the DIA completed a damage assessment report on December 18, 2013, about how Snowden apparently compromised US counterterrorism operations and threatened national security, leaks from the classified report immediately started to surface in the media. They were sourced to members of Congress and unnamed officials who cast Snowden as a "traitor."
"Members from both sides (Reps. Richard Nugent, Austin Scott, Henry "Hank" Johnson, Jr. and Susan Davis) repeatedly pressed the [DIA] briefers for information from the [Snowden damage] report to be made releasable to the public,"
"[Redacted] explained the restrictions were to [redacted] but the members appeared unmoved by this argument. Overall, HASC [House Armed Services Committee] members were both appreciative of the report and expressed repeatedly that this information needed to be shared with the American public."
Some small number of people may hold such views, however the vast majority of uninformed Americans don't even know who is Snowden, what he did or why he did it.
Just watch this recent John Oliver video (caution, graphic language and subject matter):
Nobody seems to care until they find out the government is looking at their naked selfies.
I don't defend Snowden's revelations about US spying on foreign targets, military or civilian, at least not for targets such as China and Russia. But let's face it, it's no secret that the US and China routinely spy on each other - or rather, "monitor each other’s computer networks for national security reasons." I suspect this was an attempt to disclose relatively safe, already known information to discourage Chinese officials from handing over Snowden to the US while he was in Hong Kong.
Of course everyone spies on everyone else. But you need to keep them guessing as to what, where, when, etc. Just because we all know everyone does it, does not mean that it is correct or right or legal or moral to disclose that.
Snowden revealed information on US intelligence efforts in other countries. That was wrong and harmed US interests. I've long agreed that his "leaks" about NSA targeting US citizens inside the US was not the problem. This is not a black and white issue. He did a good service on the whistleblowing part about NSA targeting US citizens inside the US. He did a disservice and is not a hero for his revealing information about US intelligence efforts overseas.
Moreover, there is no proof that Snowden knowingly aided the enemy. He may have done so through carelessness, the jury is out on that, and if so, that warrants some censure. But it isn't treason, and it does not warrant the death penalty, no matter how the American people "feel" about it. How the public "feels" is not how justice is administered, not in a civilised country.
Really? Disclosing information about US efforts in China / Hong Kong is not knowingly aiding foreign intelligence?
They don't. That's not what I'm saying. You're saying that execution is the punishment of treason and questioning how that is intolerant. Because it's the freaking death penalty is why, the very epitome of intolerance - we are killing you for what you have done. The fact that it is law is not much of a guiding principle to whether its tolerant or not since, as in the examples I gave, or indeed examples from the US's history, laws can often be highly intolerant.
Moreover, there is no proof that Snowden knowingly aided the enemy. He may have done so through carelessness, the jury is out on that, and if so, that warrants some censure. But it isn't treason, and it does not warrant the death penalty, no matter how the American people "feel" about it. How the public "feels" is not how justice is administered, not in a civilised country.
Fine fine fine. I'm intolerant towards murderers, terrorists, rapists and traitors. We should all give them a stern warning and hope they learn from their mistakes.
Fine fine fine. I'm intolerant towards murderers, terrorists, rapists and traitors. We should all give them a stern warning and hope they learn from their mistakes.
OK, so where's your outrage for of those in our government who have lied to Congress, violated the Bill of Rights, illegally imprisoned and tortured people, defied court decisions on the illegality thereof, started foreign wars based on false premises, diverted trillions of tax dollars to unaccountable defense contractors, overthrown democratically elected foreign governments, encouraged African countries to demonize homosexuals and punish them with death, etc?
OK, so where's your outrage for of those in our government who have lied to Congress, violated the Bill of Rights, illegally imprisoned and tortured people, defied court decisions on the illegality thereof, started foreign wars based on false premises, diverted trillions of tax dollars to unaccountable defense contractors, overthrown democratically elected foreign governments, encouraged African countries to demonize homosexuals and punish them with death, etc?
Fine fine fine. I'm intolerant towards murderers, terrorists, rapists and traitors. We should all give them a stern warning and hope they learn from their mistakes.
You jest, but it is an intolerance. We don't tolerate murderers, rapists or terrorists. That's a good thing, for the extreme most part, and there is no contradiction in society punishing and/or rehabilitating people based on this intolerance, for the self-improvement of the society. But when you start applying it to "traitors", especially when you don't have a particularly clear definition of what a traitor is, or how it applies to society, it's a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadbag
Really? Disclosing information about US efforts in China / Hong Kong is not knowingly aiding foreign intelligence?
Are China and Hong Kong "the enemy"? You do an awful lot of business with that enemy.
Moreover, and to the original point, did Snowden take the action he took knowing that the information about foreign intelligence that was contained in his leaks would aid governments or groups that seek to do the US harm? If he didn't know that, then you can hardly call him a traitor or treasonous. Treason is an act where conscious, knowing, compliance is implied.
You jest, but it is an intolerance. We don't tolerate murderers, rapists or terrorists. That's a good thing, for the extreme most part, and there is no contradiction in society punishing and/or rehabilitating people based on this intolerance, for the self-improvement of the society. But when you start applying it to "traitors", especially when you don't have a particularly clear definition of what a traitor is, or how it applies to society, it's a problem.
Moreover, and to the original point, did Snowden take the action he took knowing that the information about foreign intelligence that was contained in his leaks would aid governments or groups that seek to do the US harm? If he didn't know that, then you can hardly call him a traitor or treasonous. Treason is an act where conscious, knowing, compliance is implied.
I do have a clear definition of traitor. Snowden fits the bill. Releasing govt secrets to foreign entities including the enemy is treasonous. He knew damn well what was in those files. Otherwise he wouldn't have fled the country.
You jest, but it is an intolerance. We don't tolerate murderers, rapists or terrorists. That's a good thing, for the extreme most part, and there is no contradiction in society punishing and/or rehabilitating people based on this intolerance, for the self-improvement of the society. But when you start applying it to "traitors", especially when you don't have a particularly clear definition of what a traitor is, or how it applies to society, it's a problem.
Moreover, and to the original point, did Snowden take the action he took knowing that the information about foreign intelligence that was contained in his leaks would aid governments or groups that seek to do the US harm? If he didn't know that, then you can hardly call him a traitor or treasonous. Treason is an act where conscious, knowing, compliance is implied.
I do have a clear definition of traitor. Snowden fits the bill. Releasing govt secrets to foreign entities including the enemy is treasonous. He knew damn well what was in those files. Otherwise he wouldn't have fled the country.
Fleeing the country was triggered by the discovery of his bulk file downloading activities, which led to awkward questions being asked at work. But yes - he knew what he was accessing.
What I love about this comment section is just how many people working for or associated with the U.S. Government are posting hate commentary aimed at Snowden. This is hilarious, I've never read so many neatly written, grammatically correct hate speeches in my entire life. Feel free to record my emails, search my hard drive, threaten that you know who I am ... you already know who I am so no big deal. What I think might be the case is perhaps you guys have real intelligence service work to do rather than spend your time writing hate speech on Apple Insider article comments.
Comments
Thus Apple is synonymous with privacy, until they get "F"ed a FISA order... Luckily, if you can call it that, it also can not be publicized thus you can be super private and slip out the odd info bit , due to the FISA.
Some small number of people may hold such views, however the vast majority of uninformed Americans don't even know who is Snowden, what he did or why he did it.
Just watch this recent John Oliver video (caution, graphic language and subject matter):
Leaking classified information in itself isn't treason. Leaking classified information to benefit our enemies is treason.
Ah, so as a legal expert, can you clarify whether this definition requires the perpetrator to knowingly and intentionally benefit our enemies, or is any action that somehow results in a benefit to our enemies defined as treason and therefore punishable by death? Or can you cite any actual evidence that Snowden shared any military information with enemies?
Then there's the question of whether Snowden broke an oath of confidentiality.
"To begin with, did Snowden sign “an oath…not to disclose classified information”? He says that he did not, and that does not appear to have been contradicted. Snowden told the Washington Post’s Barton Gellman that the document he signed was Standard Form 312, a contract in which the signatory says he will “accept” the terms, rather than swearing to them. By signing it, Snowden agreed that he was aware that there were federal laws against disclosing classified information. But the penalties for violating this agreement alone are civil: for example, the government can go after any book royalties he might get for publishing secrets."
So violating the above oath isn't even a crime; it's merely a civil offense. They can sue him. That's it.
What else?
Snowden had taken an oath—the Oath of Office, given to all federal employees when he was an employee earlier, for the C.I.A.:
Some would argue that he violated this oath in revealing what he did; but Snowden told Gellman that the revelations were how he kept it—protecting the Constitution from the officials at the N.S.A., which was assaulting it.
Now let's turn back to the actual letter of the law on treason, cited below...
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
What we know is that Snowden used automated web-crawling software to "scrape" the NSA's systems. The information that's been made publicly available contained no military secrets. Further, all the accusations that Snowden took military secrets are unsubstantiated, based on "fears" and "assumptions" rather than any actual evidence. Snowden had extensive security clearance and, based on this, intelligence officials simply assume that he took copies of everything he had access to.
“Everything that he touched, we assume that he took,” said General Flynn, “We assume the worst case.”
So in reality, it's unclear how many documents, pertaining to surveillance and otherwise, he ended up taking. While it's expected that intelligence officials assume the worse when evaluating situations like this, there is zero evidence to suggest Snowden ever intended to take military secrets, that he wanted to help foreign adversaries such as Russia or China, or that he's shared any confidential information with anyone but a select number of respected journalists, and even then, only after taking extensive measures to ensure security.
We don't know all the facts. All we know from this situation is that the government has violated US citizens' constitutionally protected civil liberties and repeatedly lied about it to Congress. We've yet to see a single instance where Snowden has lied about anything.
It's the current law. He broke American laws. Why would other countries' laws apply?
They don't. That's not what I'm saying. You're saying that execution is the punishment of treason and questioning how that is intolerant. Because it's the freaking death penalty is why, the very epitome of intolerance - we are killing you for what you have done. The fact that it is law is not much of a guiding principle to whether its tolerant or not since, as in the examples I gave, or indeed examples from the US's history, laws can often be highly intolerant.
Moreover, there is no proof that Snowden knowingly aided the enemy. He may have done so through carelessness, the jury is out on that, and if so, that warrants some censure. But it isn't treason, and it does not warrant the death penalty, no matter how the American people "feel" about it. How the public "feels" is not how justice is administered, not in a civilised country.
Ah, so as a legal expert, can you clarify whether this definition requires the perpetrator to knowingly and intentionally benefit our enemies, or is any action that somehow results in a benefit to our enemies defined as treason and therefore punishable by death? Or can you cite any actual evidence that Snowden shared any military information with enemies?
Then there's the question of whether Snowden broke an oath of confidentiality.
So violating the above oath isn't even a crime; it's merely a civil offense. They can sue him. That's it.
What else?
Some would argue that he violated this oath in revealing what he did; but Snowden told Gellman that the revelations were how he kept it—protecting the Constitution from the officials at the N.S.A., which was assaulting it.
Now let's turn back to the actual letter of the law on treason, cited below...
What we know is that Snowden used automated web-crawling software to "scrape" the NSA's systems. The information that's been made publicly available contained no military secrets. Further, all the accusations that Snowden took military secrets are unsubstantiated, based on "fears" and "assumptions" rather than any actual evidence. Snowden had extensive security clearance and, based on this, intelligence officials simply assume that he took copies of everything he had access to.
“Everything that he touched, we assume that he took,” said General Flynn, “We assume the worst case.”
So in reality, it's unclear how many documents, pertaining to surveillance and otherwise, he ended up taking. While it's expected that intelligence officials assume the worse when evaluating situations like this, there is zero evidence to suggest Snowden ever intended to take military secrets, that he wanted to help foreign adversaries such as Russia or China, or that he's shared any confidential information with anyone but a select number of respected journalists, and even then, only after taking extensive measures to ensure security.
We don't know all the facts. All we know from this situation is that the government has violated US citizens' constitutionally protected civil liberties and repeatedly lied about it to Congress. We've yet to see a single instance where Snowden has lied about anything.
Are you saying he did not leak information about NSA spying on computers in China and Hong Kong?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/world/asia/ex-nsa-contractors-disclosures-could-complicate-his-fate.html?_r=0
Exposing direct military secrets and exposing our intelligence efforts in other countries are one and the same in terms of "treason."
The death penalty for this is rather harsh though. I would not support the death penalty for his actions in regards exposing NSA efforts outside of the US. Exposing the NSA efforts inside the US is laudable. Exposing other NSA efforts outside the US is not.
Quote:Are you saying he did not leak information about NSA spying on computers in China and Hong Kong?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/world/asia/ex-nsa-contractors-disclosures-could-complicate-his-fate.html?_r=0
Exposing direct military secrets and exposing our intelligence efforts in other countries are one and the same in terms of "treason."
The death penalty for this is rather harsh though. I would not support the death penalty for his actions in regards exposing NSA efforts outside of the US. Exposing the NSA efforts inside the US is laudable. Exposing other NSA efforts outside the US is not.
I don't defend Snowden's revelations about US spying on foreign targets, military or civilian, at least not for targets such as China and Russia. But let's face it, it's no secret that the US and China routinely spy on each other - or rather, "monitor each other’s computer networks for national security reasons." I suspect this was an attempt to disclose relatively safe, already known information to discourage Chinese officials from handing over Snowden to the US while he was in Hong Kong.
Speaking of leaks of classified information, it seems that some members of Congress apply a double standard to the question of classified leaks when it might serve their agenda to publicly discredit Snowden.
According to Snowden's attorney, Ben Wizner, "The intelligence community leaked classified information [last year] in order to excoriate Edward Snowden for leaking classified information. The difference is that Snowden provided information [to] journalists to inform the public about the government's actions, and the government leaked information in order to misinform the public about his."
"In a paragraph on page three of the documents DIA turned over to VICE News, "DIA describes the classified discussions [with Congress] concerning the impact of the Snowden disclosures on military plans and operations. The paragraph refers to the assessment of the scope of that impact, and thus warrants classification. Disclosure of the information would degrade the military capabilities of the United States ... "
"After the DIA completed a damage assessment report on December 18, 2013, about how Snowden apparently compromised US counterterrorism operations and threatened national security, leaks from the classified report immediately started to surface in the media. They were sourced to members of Congress and unnamed officials who cast Snowden as a "traitor."
"Members from both sides (Reps. Richard Nugent, Austin Scott, Henry "Hank" Johnson, Jr. and Susan Davis) repeatedly pressed the [DIA] briefers for information from the [Snowden damage] report to be made releasable to the public,"
"[Redacted] explained the restrictions were to [redacted] but the members appeared unmoved by this argument. Overall, HASC [House Armed Services Committee] members were both appreciative of the report and expressed repeatedly that this information needed to be shared with the American public."
Some small number of people may hold such views, however the vast majority of uninformed Americans don't even know who is Snowden, what he did or why he did it.
Just watch this recent John Oliver video (caution, graphic language and subject matter):
Nobody seems to care until they find out the government is looking at their naked selfies.
I don't defend Snowden's revelations about US spying on foreign targets, military or civilian, at least not for targets such as China and Russia. But let's face it, it's no secret that the US and China routinely spy on each other - or rather, "monitor each other’s computer networks for national security reasons." I suspect this was an attempt to disclose relatively safe, already known information to discourage Chinese officials from handing over Snowden to the US while he was in Hong Kong.
Of course everyone spies on everyone else. But you need to keep them guessing as to what, where, when, etc. Just because we all know everyone does it, does not mean that it is correct or right or legal or moral to disclose that.
Snowden revealed information on US intelligence efforts in other countries. That was wrong and harmed US interests. I've long agreed that his "leaks" about NSA targeting US citizens inside the US was not the problem. This is not a black and white issue. He did a good service on the whistleblowing part about NSA targeting US citizens inside the US. He did a disservice and is not a hero for his revealing information about US intelligence efforts overseas.
Moreover, there is no proof that Snowden knowingly aided the enemy. He may have done so through carelessness, the jury is out on that, and if so, that warrants some censure. But it isn't treason, and it does not warrant the death penalty, no matter how the American people "feel" about it. How the public "feels" is not how justice is administered, not in a civilised country.
Really? Disclosing information about US efforts in China / Hong Kong is not knowingly aiding foreign intelligence?
Fine fine fine. I'm intolerant towards murderers, terrorists, rapists and traitors. We should all give them a stern warning and hope they learn from their mistakes.
Fine fine fine. I'm intolerant towards murderers, terrorists, rapists and traitors. We should all give them a stern warning and hope they learn from their mistakes.
OK, so where's your outrage for of those in our government who have lied to Congress, violated the Bill of Rights, illegally imprisoned and tortured people, defied court decisions on the illegality thereof, started foreign wars based on false premises, diverted trillions of tax dollars to unaccountable defense contractors, overthrown democratically elected foreign governments, encouraged African countries to demonize homosexuals and punish them with death, etc?
OK, so where's your outrage for of those in our government who have lied to Congress, violated the Bill of Rights, illegally imprisoned and tortured people, defied court decisions on the illegality thereof, started foreign wars based on false premises, diverted trillions of tax dollars to unaccountable defense contractors, overthrown democratically elected foreign governments, encouraged African countries to demonize homosexuals and punish them with death, etc?
<WhyNotBoth.jpg>
Fine fine fine. I'm intolerant towards murderers, terrorists, rapists and traitors. We should all give them a stern warning and hope they learn from their mistakes.
You jest, but it is an intolerance. We don't tolerate murderers, rapists or terrorists. That's a good thing, for the extreme most part, and there is no contradiction in society punishing and/or rehabilitating people based on this intolerance, for the self-improvement of the society. But when you start applying it to "traitors", especially when you don't have a particularly clear definition of what a traitor is, or how it applies to society, it's a problem.
Really? Disclosing information about US efforts in China / Hong Kong is not knowingly aiding foreign intelligence?
Are China and Hong Kong "the enemy"? You do an awful lot of business with that enemy.
Moreover, and to the original point, did Snowden take the action he took knowing that the information about foreign intelligence that was contained in his leaks would aid governments or groups that seek to do the US harm? If he didn't know that, then you can hardly call him a traitor or treasonous. Treason is an act where conscious, knowing, compliance is implied.
I do have a clear definition of traitor. Snowden fits the bill. Releasing govt secrets to foreign entities including the enemy is treasonous. He knew damn well what was in those files. Otherwise he wouldn't have fled the country.
You jest, but it is an intolerance. We don't tolerate murderers, rapists or terrorists. That's a good thing, for the extreme most part, and there is no contradiction in society punishing and/or rehabilitating people based on this intolerance, for the self-improvement of the society. But when you start applying it to "traitors", especially when you don't have a particularly clear definition of what a traitor is, or how it applies to society, it's a problem.
Moreover, and to the original point, did Snowden take the action he took knowing that the information about foreign intelligence that was contained in his leaks would aid governments or groups that seek to do the US harm? If he didn't know that, then you can hardly call him a traitor or treasonous. Treason is an act where conscious, knowing, compliance is implied.
I do have a clear definition of traitor. Snowden fits the bill. Releasing govt secrets to foreign entities including the enemy is treasonous. He knew damn well what was in those files. Otherwise he wouldn't have fled the country.
Fleeing the country was triggered by the discovery of his bulk file downloading activities, which led to awkward questions being asked at work. But yes - he knew what he was accessing.