3rdnlng Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 It's not my opinion, it's fact. There is no legal definition of treason that equates to merely leaking classified info. Hell, what he did doesn't even qualify as espionage. It's "disclosure of classified information to unauthorized persons." Read what I posted again. Yes, leaking classified information can be considered treason. You guys are looking at this in a rather small and limited way. Maybe those perches on the balcony don't really give you an overall view, eh? You and Darin are basically arguing that since the classified info was not that "classifiedable" it was no big deal. Horseshit! It wasn't Snowden's choice to make. Now, you guys probably think I endorse the NSA's data mining program because I don't endorse what Snowden did. I've never indicated that at all, because this discussion is about something entirely different than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 Read what I posted again. Yes, leaking classified information can be considered treason. You guys are looking at this in a rather small and limited way. Maybe those perches on the balcony don't really give you an overall view, eh? You and Darin are basically arguing that since the classified info was not that "classifiedable" it was no big deal. Horseshit! It wasn't Snowden's choice to make. I'm looking at it from a legal basis. And that legal basis says: not treason. Not a traitor. It doesn't matter what you think. Now, you guys probably think I endorse the NSA's data mining program because I don't endorse what Snowden did. I've never indicated that at all, because this discussion is about something entirely different than that. Actually, I never gave it a second thought. But now that you mention it...no, I don't think that. Probably because I'm not the halfwit you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 I'm looking at it from a legal basis. And that legal basis says: not treason. Not a traitor. It doesn't matter what you think. Actually, I never gave it a second thought. But now that you mention it...no, I don't think that. Probably because I'm not the halfwit you are. So, you're looking at it on a legal basis? Is that just because you say it's so? You haven't supported your opinion here in any way so far. From my prior posts I get that releasing classified information can be considered treasonous. Show me something that refutes what I say, otherwise practice your buffoonery-it's all you have left. What a shame--you have the smarts to be a George Will, but prefer the life of a Cliff Clavin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 Definitely not a hero, but I wouldn't say he's a traitor either, because he didn't directly aid an enemy of the U.S., like Oliver North did with Iran. Most likely a criminal who should be put in prison to dance the pole like his superhero girlfriend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralonzo Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 I want to know why Booz Allen didn't offer me that much. I'm better at what I do than that guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 So, any employee of the CIA (or in this case contractor) can decide what is classified or not? Nice strawman. My guess is that it's classified because it is a method of sorting through the billions of calls by the NSA and having the ability of finding that one Detroit area number that keeps calling an Islamabad number and then further investigating it. Which doesn't meet the burden of information that needs to be classified. You should argue with me about it, because you clearly have worked in the industry. Once the person guilty of the equivalent of "jaywalking" has outed the methods of finding these people they have the opportunity of changing their MO. Changing their M.O.? Do you honestly think that terrorists don't think we monitor the !@#$ing phone system? Bin Laden hadn't used a telephone for communication for over a decade. Coincidence? That's just a side story to why this is serious. It's serious because he took it on his own to decide what was "jaywalking" classified vs. what was "life or death" classified. It's "serious" because your masters tell you that it is. All Hail Rush or whatever other !@#$ing blowhard you're slurping from. I'm a hell of a lot more concerned that our government is acting like the old Soviet Union. Perhaps we wouldn't need to data mine all the information in the world if our foreign policy was a little (a lot) smarter. If your reading comprehension was up to par you'd understand that the example that I gave re outing deep cover agents was simply to give Tom an example of why you can't differentiate severity of guilt by who you actually gave the information to. My reading comprehension isn't a problem. You're a friggin' moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 When the Rule of Law is used by government as a weapon against it's citizens, rather than as a shield the citizens can use to protect them from the over-reaching of government force, then that law is no longer valid or worth protecting. Snowden is anything but a traitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 When the Rule of Law is used by government as a weapon against it's citizens, rather than as a shield the citizens can use to protect them from the over-reaching of government force, then that law is no longer valid or worth protecting. Snowden is anything but a traitor. Do you have proof that it has been used as a weapon to harm citizens, as opposed to a method to protect them from those that would do harm to citizens? The government has many potential ways to harm citizens, but that doesn't mean they use them. We allow police to carry guns which could potentially harm citizens, that doesn't mean they will. This program has bipartisan support and oversight in Congress, and they have said it has saved lives. I've yet to see any proof that it has been used as a weapon against innocent civilians. And don't give me 'by looking at phone numbers they hurt me' baloney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 So, you're looking at it on a legal basis? Is that just because you say it's so? You haven't supported your opinion here in any way so far. From my prior posts I get that releasing classified information can be considered treasonous. Show me something that refutes what I say, otherwise practice your buffoonery-it's all you have left. What a shame--you have the smarts to be a George Will, but prefer the life of a Cliff Clavin. I don't have to support my "opinion." Because it's my "opinion", it's fact. It's available for you to research, if you were so inclined. If you're not inclined, that's not my problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 The definition of "traitor" is "one who commits treason." Your lack of realization isn't my problem. FWIW, there are two definition of traitor. Looks like he certainly fits the second one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 FWIW, there are two definition of traitor. Looks like he certainly fits the second one. I see three. And all mention "treason". And again...law and precedent say otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 whether you find Snowden is a hero or a traitor probably depends on what America means to you. Is your America found in ideas to be aspired to and fought for? well then maybe he's a hero Is your America intertwined economic interests and established hierarchies of power? well then maybe he's a traitor Is your America pop culture and Walmart consumerism ? well then maybe the question isn't hero or traitor but hot or not hot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) Do you have proof that it has been used as a weapon to harm citizens, as opposed to a method to protect them from those that would do harm to citizens? The government has many potential ways to harm citizens, but that doesn't mean they use them. We allow police to carry guns which could potentially harm citizens, that doesn't mean they will. This program has bipartisan support and oversight in Congress, and they have said it has saved lives. I've yet to see any proof that it has been used as a weapon against innocent civilians. And don't give me 'by looking at phone numbers they hurt me' baloney. This position is absurd. It is constructed on the supposition that government is a benevolent actor, not prone to use it's assumed powers in a retaliatory manner aginst it's own citizens; of which we have ample proof of the opposite. It assumes that the ruling class should be entrusted with all manner of powers, as long as both parties of our false-choise construction agree that they would like to have these powers, and that we should be charged with proving why they shouldn't have them, rather than them proving to us why they should. When we relinquish the Constitutional protections of the Rule of Law in order to make it easier for the government to chase those we dislike, it also makes it easier for the government to chase us; and every new administration assumes the powers usurped by the prior government, and builds apon them in their own usurpation. Government is not benevolent. It is a construction of raw power and violent force. Since it holds it's axe above my own head, I prefer to blunt it's weapons. Edited June 13, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted June 13, 2013 Author Share Posted June 13, 2013 This position is absurd. It is constructed on the supposition that government is a benevolent actor, not prone to use it's assumed powers in a retaliatory manner aginst it's own citizens; of which we ample proof of the opposite. It assumes that the ruling class should be entrusted with all manner of powers, as long as both parties of our false-choise construction agree that they would like to have these powers, and that we should charged with proving why they shouldn't have them, rather than them proving to us why they should. When we relinquish the Constitutional protections of the Rule of Law in order to make it easier for the government to chase those we dislike, it also makes it easier for the government to chase us; and every new administration assumes the powers usurped by the prior government, and builds apon them in their own usurpation. Government is not benevolent. It is a construction of raw power and violent force. Since it holds it's axe above my own head, I prefer to blunt it's weapons. This is my favorite post of yours yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 I'm trying to figure out why the woman who blew the whistle on Enron is looked at as a hero, but this guy is a traitor (by many)... Isn't it pretty much the same thing? Enron had confidential documents that were released, NSA had top secret documents. Why does the government get to hide things that are illegal (NSA isn't supposed to be collecting data on American citizens), but companies aren't supposed to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 I see three. And all mention "treason". And again...law and precedent say otherwise. There are three sources of the definition, and each defines it as basically a) treason and b) betrayal of trust. Since the OP didn't specify which definition of traitor he was looking for, Snowden certainly falls under the definition of (b). (And if he's now also disclosing US cyberwarfare against China, he's pretty close to definition (a) ) I'm trying to figure out why the woman who blew the whistle on Enron is looked at as a hero, but this guy is a traitor (by many)... Isn't it pretty much the same thing? Enron had confidential documents that were released, NSA had top secret documents. Why does the government get to hide things that are illegal (NSA isn't supposed to be collecting data on American citizens), but companies aren't supposed to? Watkins discovered the fraud and went to the Enron Chairman with her concerns, which started the chain of events that unraveled the company. Is that what Snowden did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 Do you have proof that it has been used as a weapon to harm citizens, as opposed to a method to protect them from those that would do harm to citizens? The government has many potential ways to harm citizens, but that doesn't mean they use them. We allow police to carry guns which could potentially harm citizens, that doesn't mean they will. This program has bipartisan support and oversight in Congress, and they have said it has saved lives. I've yet to see any proof that it has been used as a weapon against innocent civilians. And don't give me 'by looking at phone numbers they hurt me' baloney. I like that you discount his entire post because there is no proof and then offer up the bolded section. Since when do politicians tell the truth? Innocent civilians is another phrase that I have trouble with in your post. According to the law someone may not be innocent but that doesn't neccesarily mean what they are doing is wrong. Just like someone following the law may not be doing the right thing (especially when laws are massaged to make their own actions legal) FWIW, there are two definition of traitor. Looks like he certainly fits the second one. 2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country. Is that the definition you are talking about? His or her country in this case was most certainly not betrayed by his disclosure of this information. His government maybe but his country no. The government has betrayed their own citizens by putting in a program that violates the 4th amendment and then pretending like it doesn't. Would people that voted traitor as opposed to her be more comfortable if the vote was patriot or traitor. He did what people before him have done - fought against an oppressive government. It just happens to be our own. This position is absurd. It is constructed on the supposition that government is a benevolent actor, not prone to use it's assumed powers in a retaliatory manner aginst it's own citizens; of which we ample proof of the opposite. It assumes that the ruling class should be entrusted with all manner of powers, as long as both parties of our false-choise construction agree that they would like to have these powers, and that we should charged with proving why they shouldn't have them, rather than them proving to us why they should. When we relinquish the Constitutional protections of the Rule of Law in order to make it easier for the government to chase those we dislike, it also makes it easier for the government to chase us; and every new administration assumes the powers usurped by the prior government, and builds apon them in their own usurpation. Government is not benevolent. It is a construction of raw power and violent force. Since it holds it's axe above my own head, I prefer to blunt it's weapons. Every so often a post comes along that makes me glad to visit here. This is one of those posts. Well put. I'm trying to figure out why the woman who blew the whistle on Enron is looked at as a hero, but this guy is a traitor (by many)... Isn't it pretty much the same thing? Enron had confidential documents that were released, NSA had top secret documents. Why does the government get to hide things that are illegal (NSA isn't supposed to be collecting data on American citizens), but companies aren't supposed to? I agree and wonder where are all the Bill of Rights protectors. When I mentioned in a gun thread that owning a gun is legal and a right until the government makes it not so. People jumped all over me saying that it isn't easy to change or get around the Bill of Rights. This is the fourth amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Warrant-less searches have already been authorized as well as the collection of data of individuals that have done nothing to warrant such collection. I have no idea how the Supreme Court isn't all over this! Oh yes I do. Before Snowden brought this to light, the information was considered classified and therefore didn't technically exist so it couldn't be challenged. While now someone is willing to testify that it does exist. Therefore protecting our rights. Hero! Link for the lazy Link for the lawyer speak savvy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 Watkins discovered the fraud and went to the Enron Chairman with her concerns, which started the chain of events that unraveled the company. Is that what Snowden did? Who was Snowden supposed to go to when the "chairman" of the NSA is the one ordering this stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 Neither. Just a stupid kid. It's not traitorous to release classified info to the media (China or Iran, that'd be another story. The Guardian? Hardly.) And it's not heroic to be an idiot, else this board would be full of Medal of Honor winners. ^This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) He'll be selling secrets to China and Russia in no time. Edit: if he hasn't already, that is. Edited June 13, 2013 by LeviF91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts