Treason or Whistle Blower?

[Uncensored2008]

Unless we hold that the American people are the enemy of this administration - which actually is a reasonable position, then Snowden cannot be charged with treason.

{Clause 1: 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}

In order for the Obama regime to charge treason, they must assert that offering facts to the American people is aiding the enemy.

 

[Katzndogz]

Agreed but that does not excuse his actions.

Exposing crimes is a good thing.

Exposing crime does not require one to flee his homeland.

It does if the government is criminal. We have a history of accepting political asylum seekers that have exposed criminal conduct by their "homeland". That's when we were a country that had integrity.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Exposing crimes is a good thing.

Exposing crime does not require one to flee his homeland.

It does if the government is criminal. We have a history of accepting political asylum seekers that have exposed criminal conduct by their "homeland". That's when we were a country that had integrity.

An even better point than my witness protection analogy.

Chen Guangcheng - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chen Guangcheng was forced to flee China, and I don't think many Americans consider him a criminal for exposing crimes of the Chinese government.

 

[Katzndogz]

Unless we hold that the American people are the enemy of this administration - which actually is a reasonable position, then Snowden cannot be charged with treason.

{Clause 1: 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}

In order for the Obama regime to charge treason, they must assert that offering facts to the American people is aiding the enemy.

Very good call. The two government programs Snowden exposed (so far) is PRISM and Dark Star, neither of which affect anyone outside the United States. The ONLY way Snowden could commit treason is to have the American people the enemy.

obama could very well feel that way too.

 

[Indofred]

Unless we hold that the American people are the enemy of this administration - which actually is a reasonable position, then Snowden cannot be charged with treason.

{Clause 1: 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}

In order for the Obama regime to charge treason, they must assert that offering facts to the American people is aiding the enemy.

Very good call. The two government programs Snowden exposed (so far) is PRISM and Dark Star, neither of which affect anyone outside the United States. The ONLY way Snowden could commit treason is to have the American people the enemy.

obama could very well feel that way too.

The NSA have been hacking Chinese internet messages and, it seems, many other countries.
You really must keep up with the news if you want to debate a subject.

 

[Pop23]

I do care about civil liberties and privacy - I'm simply not paranoid and I recall what happened when the POTUS wasn't vigilant and the City of NY got hit. So, what do you prefer, body scans and strip searches on every trip on all means of public transportation or life as a game of Russian Roulette? Some middle ground exists, bit the means used by Snowden seems to me treason.

So we were "vigilant" and Boston got hit anyways.

Is there any end to you KGB police state totalitarians?

Gee Portland, I understand how a concrete 'thinker' would post such a silly comment. Consider, if you can, that perfection does not exist in the real world. We don't know how many times the vigilance was successful, only that it failed in Boston.

Would you prefer no efforts be made by the Federal Government to protect the citizens of our country? I have no doubt any government can go too far, and it seems the NSA has overstepped. I believe there should be checks and balances, I simply draw the line when the checks are so far out of balance they create a huge hole in the defense of our county.

Is there any end to your foolishness; Libertarianism has no place in the real world.

In reference to your last line.....

Give me Liberty or give me death

Depends on what you consider the "real world" is

For me, I'm damn glad libertarianism existed then and looks to be making one helluva comeback.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Exposing crimes is a good thing.

Committing a crime is not a good thing.

When the law you're breaking is bad then committing a crime is a great thing.

BULLSHIT. Who defines the law? Only a JUDGE. And his or her opinion can be overturned by higher courts. Even the SCOTUS seems unsure of a law's Constitutionality given the number of 5-4 decisions.

A U.S. Citizen cannot judge a law as good or bad - they may offer an opinion but in many of those cases the reasoning is solely subjective.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Committing a crime is not a good thing.

When the law you're breaking is bad then committing a crime is a great thing.

BULLSHIT. Who defines the law? Only a JUDGE. And his or her opinion can be overturned by higher courts. Even the SCOTUS seems unsure of a law's Constitutionality given the number of 5-4 decisions.

A U.S. Citizen cannot judge a law as good or bad - they may offer an opinion but in many of those cases the reasoning is solely subjective.

So only the government can decide the limits of its own power. Yeah, I can see how that wouldn't be prone to abuse at all.

Good thing Edward Snowden didn't have that servile mindset.

 

[asterism]

Exposing crimes is a good thing.

Committing a crime is not a good thing.

When the law you're breaking is bad then committing a crime is a great thing.

But the law against releasing classified information is not a bad law. This isn't civil disobedience against Jim Crow laws, it's leaking information about a program he didn't like. He signed away his authority to make that decision when he agreed to follow the security protocols.

He had a myriad of options before going to the press. As I stated previously, there are many former operators that have been willing to step in to correct bad actions. Had he utilized them, I'd support his actions.

Let's look at this another way. Suppose a prison guard helps a convict escape because he thinks the convict is innocent. Would you support that?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Committing a crime is not a good thing.

When the law you're breaking is bad then committing a crime is a great thing.

But the law against releasing classified information is not a bad law. This isn't civil disobedience against Jim Crow laws, it's leaking information about a program he didn't like. He signed away his authority to make that decision when he agreed to follow the security protocols.

He had a myriad of options before going to the press. As I stated previously, there are many former operators that have been willing to step in to correct bad actions. Had he utilized them, I'd support his actions.

Let's look at this another way. Suppose a prison guard helps a convict escape because he thinks the convict is innocent. Would you support that?

Yes, and when the government abuses the power to classify information for nonsense like this then it becomes a bad law.

 

[asterism]

When the law you're breaking is bad then committing a crime is a great thing.

BULLSHIT. Who defines the law? Only a JUDGE. And his or her opinion can be overturned by higher courts. Even the SCOTUS seems unsure of a law's Constitutionality given the number of 5-4 decisions.

A U.S. Citizen cannot judge a law as good or bad - they may offer an opinion but in many of those cases the reasoning is solely subjective.

So only the government can decide the limits of its own power. Yeah, I can see how that wouldn't be prone to abuse at all.

Good thing Edward Snowden didn't have that servile mindset.

What qualifies him, in your opinion, to decide which secrets should be kept and which secrets should be exposed?

It's well-known that China has been hacking US computers. Do you think it's prudent for the US to retaliate and hack theirs?

 

[asterism]

When the law you're breaking is bad then committing a crime is a great thing.

But the law against releasing classified information is not a bad law. This isn't civil disobedience against Jim Crow laws, it's leaking information about a program he didn't like. He signed away his authority to make that decision when he agreed to follow the security protocols.

He had a myriad of options before going to the press. As I stated previously, there are many former operators that have been willing to step in to correct bad actions. Had he utilized them, I'd support his actions.

Let's look at this another way. Suppose a prison guard helps a convict escape because he thinks the convict is innocent. Would you support that?

Yes, and when the government abuses the power to classify information for nonsense like this then it becomes a bad law.

So all secrets should be exposed? Location of nuclear submarines, codes for the missiles, identities of foreign assets, locations of covert safe houses, tomorrow's movements of our military forces?

 

[Wry Catcher]

When the law you're breaking is bad then committing a crime is a great thing.

BULLSHIT. Who defines the law? Only a JUDGE. And his or her opinion can be overturned by higher courts. Even the SCOTUS seems unsure of a law's Constitutionality given the number of 5-4 decisions.

A U.S. Citizen cannot judge a law as good or bad - they may offer an opinion but in many of those cases the reasoning is solely subjective.

So only the government can decide the limits of its own power. Yeah, I can see how that wouldn't be prone to abuse at all.

Good thing Edward Snowden didn't have that servile mindset.

Good grief Kevin, we've had a pretty good run for the last two centuries and you and others like you believe you know best. That's pretty damn narcissistic.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

BULLSHIT. Who defines the law? Only a JUDGE. And his or her opinion can be overturned by higher courts. Even the SCOTUS seems unsure of a law's Constitutionality given the number of 5-4 decisions.

A U.S. Citizen cannot judge a law as good or bad - they may offer an opinion but in many of those cases the reasoning is solely subjective.

So only the government can decide the limits of its own power. Yeah, I can see how that wouldn't be prone to abuse at all.

Good thing Edward Snowden didn't have that servile mindset.

What qualifies him, in your opinion, to decide which secrets should be kept and which secrets should be exposed?

It's well-known that China has been hacking US computers. Do you think it's prudent for the US to retaliate and hack theirs?

Nothing qualifies him anymore than anybody else. When you see something wrong do you wait to decide whether you're qualified to decide whether it's right or wrong, or do you work to make it right? If he wanted to hurt the U.S. government, however, then he wouldn't have gone to the press with this information. He would've sold it to any number of interested parties around the world.

No, the U.S. should be better. It doesn't benefit the American people to hack China's computers, and there is no constitutional justification to do so. War has not been declared against China, so where does this authority come from in the first place?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

But the law against releasing classified information is not a bad law. This isn't civil disobedience against Jim Crow laws, it's leaking information about a program he didn't like. He signed away his authority to make that decision when he agreed to follow the security protocols.

He had a myriad of options before going to the press. As I stated previously, there are many former operators that have been willing to step in to correct bad actions. Had he utilized them, I'd support his actions.

Let's look at this another way. Suppose a prison guard helps a convict escape because he thinks the convict is innocent. Would you support that?

Yes, and when the government abuses the power to classify information for nonsense like this then it becomes a bad law.

So all secrets should be exposed? Location of nuclear submarines, codes for the missiles, identities of foreign assets, locations of covert safe houses, tomorrow's movements of our military forces?

Only those actions of the government which are illegal should be exposed. Violating the Fourth Amendment by spying on every single American is one of those actions. The U.S. government tried to hide behind the law by classifying this information, but that was to protect themselves from being held accountable.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

BULLSHIT. Who defines the law? Only a JUDGE. And his or her opinion can be overturned by higher courts. Even the SCOTUS seems unsure of a law's Constitutionality given the number of 5-4 decisions.

A U.S. Citizen cannot judge a law as good or bad - they may offer an opinion but in many of those cases the reasoning is solely subjective.

So only the government can decide the limits of its own power. Yeah, I can see how that wouldn't be prone to abuse at all.

Good thing Edward Snowden didn't have that servile mindset.

Good grief Kevin, we've had a pretty good run for the last two centuries and you and others like you believe you know best. That's pretty damn narcissistic.

I'd call it narcissistic to spy on every American and then think you can classify your actions in an attempt to hide it from the people you purport to serve, but that's just me.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Google chairman that is helping Obama spy on us said "If you're doing things you wouldn't want people to see, maybe you shouldn't be doing them!"

I figure if we started looking into his private life there's plenty he does that he wouldn't want anyone knowing.

Just about everyone except Jesus Christ does something like that.

Liberals complain about Republicans trying to invade women's vaginas.

I'm sorry, the government doesn't has the right to arbitrarily invade my privacy. If Hitler had this technology there wouldn't be a Jew left on Earth.

Right. Because he would have gotten everyone who googled "Matzah Balls". Really.

You know, guy, you are coming off as more hysterical every day.

You're right.. Hitler had the SS for internal security.. Just BEAT the shit out of them and they'll talk.. HOWEVER -- if all he needed was 12 guys in a control room tapping all the phones and listening to radio comm and opening mail ---- All those SS might have made the difference on the Russian front..

Snowden is a whistleblower... He understands the gravity of the situation. Not a Bradley Manning reading stuff he wasn't cleared for and didn't understand the consequences for releasing it..

He does not NEED to spill stuff to China. The WIKI lists the assets and location and pictures of our US Cyber Command. There are DOZENS of open articles about our spy operations on China.

His value to them is as a political TROPHY.. He is a symbol of US Civil Rights violations and abuse of its own people's trust.. That's gold folks. They would NEVER screw that up for an interrogation and Snowden KNOWS this.. You should too if you pondered it...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Pretty clear that jackboot licking Modern Liberals have nothing in common with our Founding principles

 

[asterism]

So only the government can decide the limits of its own power. Yeah, I can see how that wouldn't be prone to abuse at all.

Good thing Edward Snowden didn't have that servile mindset.

What qualifies him, in your opinion, to decide which secrets should be kept and which secrets should be exposed?

It's well-known that China has been hacking US computers. Do you think it's prudent for the US to retaliate and hack theirs?

Nothing qualifies him anymore than anybody else. When you see something wrong do you wait to decide whether you're qualified to decide whether it's right or wrong, or do you work to make it right? If he wanted to hurt the U.S. government, however, then he wouldn't have gone to the press with this information. He would've sold it to any number of interested parties around the world.

No, the U.S. should be better. It doesn't benefit the American people to hack China's computers, and there is no constitutional justification to do so. War has not been declared against China, so where does this authority come from in the first place?

There is much more to aggressive activities than those done in a declared war. The authority comes from the National Security Act of 1947.

 

[asterism]

Yes, and when the government abuses the power to classify information for nonsense like this then it becomes a bad law.

So all secrets should be exposed? Location of nuclear submarines, codes for the missiles, identities of foreign assets, locations of covert safe houses, tomorrow's movements of our military forces?

Only those actions of the government which are illegal should be exposed. Violating the Fourth Amendment by spying on every single American is one of those actions. The U.S. government tried to hide behind the law by classifying this information, but that was to protect themselves from being held accountable.

So anyone who thinks nuclear weapons are illegal would be fine in releasing the launch codes?