Nothing that Snowden has leaked constitutes “malfeasance”; if there were genuinely unlawful things going on, there are lawful channels he could have pursued it through. By choosing not to pursue those channels and instead steal millions of pages of documents and hand it over to a subject of a foreign crown, he made himself a traitor.
No, Manning was a person with severe untreated identity issues who was mad at the Army for failing to “fix” him, and decided to get revenge by embarrassing them.
How is the Snowden data getting disseminated? Did he release everything at once to the media, or is he still doling it out a bit at a time? If the latter, how do we know he isn’t giving the US plenty of time to cover its ass? How do we know he isn’t holding back the truly damaging information?
Whatever happened with all those diplomatic cables that Wikileaks got its hands on? Any wars or tit-for-tat spy assassinations going on?
The crime that “by definition” amounts to treason is the crime of treason, which is an offence under US federal law, and he conspicuously has not been charged with that. Being convicted of espionage makes you a spy, not a traitor. And if “unauthorised communicstion of defense information” and “wilful communication of classified communications intelligence” amounts to treason, then there are very large numbers of traitors in the US.
Hyperventilation =/= argument or evidence.
The CIA cannot legally do anything inside the U.S., so that doesn’t quite fly.
I have seen this asserted before. Who do you think he could have told? All his supervisors, up to the Director of the NSA were aware of these things. What would have happened if he had told the FBI? Do you think he believed Congress and the President were complete unaware of this?
Daniel Ellsburg got Sen. Gravel to make the Pentagon Papers public. Could Snowden not have found one member of Congress sympathetic to his goals - not Ron Wyden, not Rand Paul, not even Bernie Sanders?
Wow, that’s a pretty personal attack. Which right-wing website did you read that from? Do you feel that way about all trans persons or just ones whose politics you disagree with?
No, just the ones who join the Army because they think it’ll fix their problems, and then decide to commit treason when it turns out it doesn’t work that way.
He joined the Army to prove he was a man. Oh, kinda like 99% of other guys who join the Army. Has Manning ever said he did it because the Army didn’t make him a man?
I agree that his “hero” status is a tabloid distraction. But in an ideal world we’d have a sensible debate about legal international spying as well as questionable domestic spying. I don’t think too many of us would be comfortable with the idea that everything is fair game as long as you’re not spying on U.S. citizens.
I suspect it’s going to be pointless to argue about this, but this is nothing like what you claimed.
I don’t see him saying he did it to get revenge on the Army for not changing him.
Prior to the very recent change in policy, it was common to jail and discharge gay & lesbian soldiers, and I doubt they treated transgendered much differently.
Only because she didn’t say that. Otherwise it was dead-on!
The initial charges were made early upon Snowden’s defection, and before he made further leaks of sensitive information, and before the full extent of his actions were completely known. That he has not yet been charged explicitly with treason is not evidence that he wouldn’t be or won’t be, should he be brought back to the custody of U.S. authorities to face justice.
In any case, to any reasonable use of the word, Constitutionally speaking or otherwise, the current charges do indeed amount to treason in my opinion.
Espionage against your own country—against the very homeland of which you are a citizen—is indeed treason. Are you really unaware that the U.S. has executed people as traitors for this precise crime?
You must be confused. Really? You think Holder could legitimately have written this letter about “large numbers” of people currently in the U.S.? :rolleyes: Or did you not read my link and notice those words are verbatim from the U.S. Attorney General’s actual charges pertaining to Snowden? Obviously, Mr. Holder considers these charges to be remarkable.
You might want to spend some time thinking about what “defense information” and “classified intelligence” are, if you’re going to have an argument of any merit.
Snowden has released sensitive and classified documents that reveals to enemies of the U.S. information about security and defense plans as well as technology capabilities, which could provide those enemies with an advantage in actions or operations taken against the U.S. That is treason, and is what Mr. Holder referred to.
What the hell is this? Who’s hyperventilating? You?
I have no emotional attachment to Mr. Showden’s fate. I just believing in calling a spade a spade, regardless of prevailing emotional reactions to the current situation.
Still, I hope some good comes from this, since it does appear the NSA has overreached its constitutional authority. But I am not one to believe that the end justifies the means.
He hasn’t continued to leak information, and I believe he’s said he has nothing on him now. What’s happened over time is that journalists have continued to report on what he disclosed.
No, because they didn’t charge him with treason. Only treason charges “amount to treason”.
In this case, Snowden is guilty of espionage for his own country. He gave important, information to the citizens of the US.
Indeed. Anybody in the government can classify anything. With no real oversight. Think about that. That means most classified information is merely embarrassing to the powers that be, rather than dangerous to the US. Classifying everything is like crying wolf. Eventually people don’t trust that the government classifies information justifiably, eroding the entire system. Hiding your misdeeds from your boss (the voting public) is not honorable.
No, he released important information to the US people, who had a “need to know” what their government was doing to them in their name.
Imagine, just for a moment, that it wasn’t the NSA, but China, who was implementing these exact same programs on the exact same people for the exact same reasons. Snowden would be hailed unequivocally as a hero, for – at great risk to himself – alerting the American people to the information warfare being perpetrated on them. The fact that the it wasn’t China, but a rogue US government agency doesn’t change anything in my opinion.
Going through the lawful channels worked so well for people like William Binney and Thomas Drake. Do you really wonder that Snowden (who new the history of these other whistle blowers) decided to do what he did?
Whistle blowing is an important safety valve for the United States and laws protecting whistle blowing were incorporated as early as 1778 by the continental congress. Even the framers felt it was important that citizens and all persons in service of the United states needed to report “misconduct, frauds or misdemeanors committed by any officers in the service of these states, which may come to their knowledge.” The Binney and Drake cases clearly showed that reporting the misconduct up the chain was ineffective and that reporting the misconduct to the ultimate arbiter of government power, the people, was warranted.
Snowden definitely broke laws and I believe he should be held accountable, but I think what he did is a net positive. The programs undertaken by our intelligence agencies were expensive, either marginally effective or potential damaging to effectiveness of the agency due to the sheer amounts of information involved, and could potential be used to substantially damage democracy in our country.
The NSA illegally gathered the phone calls made, the websites visited, and the internet searching habits of every citizen in the United States. This information could be used to discredit (John Smith gets all his news from Al Jazera!) or even prosecute (it has been a plank of the Republican party that all pornography should be illegal and vigorously prosecuted) political enemies of whoever is in power. The NSA has already been illegally sharing the data they collect with the DEA and the IRS; and this was done with a relatively un-corrupt administration. What would happen if we had someone like Nixon in office? Snowden did us all a favor by bringing these programs to light. We, the people, have a right to know that our government monitoring all our communications and internet browsing habits and we need to have a discussion on how we feel about that.
Snowden; not a hero, but he did us a favor and I, for one, am grateful.
Really? Every citizen? Internet search habits? Sorry, I must ask for a cite.
You’re hung up on this absolutist attitude of constitutional treason. It’s not really the point. Of course he isn’t going to be explicitly tried with treason until he is in custody. But the charges are treason, because he is charged with giving aid to the enemy.
The government, of the people, for the people, and by the people, is the democratically elected authority in the U.S., against which he committed treason. You might argue it was ethically justified (which I’ve allowed, above), but in my view the ends do not justify the means.
Irrelevant to whether Snowden committed treason or not.
He gave information to the media, including foreign media, which means the classified information he held was given to our enemies as well. That is treason.
Irrelevant. Snowden is not a citizen of China, and did not pledge loyalty under oath to any of its agencies, as he did for the country of which he is a citizen, the United States.
The way Snowden went about his whistle-blowing has given classified information about U.S. security, defense plans, and technology capabilities to our enemies. He has undermined U.S. national security. He has made every citizen of the U.S. a little less safe.
The U.S. government agency you refer to (the NSA), a Congressionally approved and constitutionally legal agency, may have overstepped its authority. But there are also constitutionally acceptable means of addressing this, to which Snowden did not avail himself.
Instead, Snowden blabbed about the classified information he knew to all and sundry, including to enemies of the U.S. That is treason. Giving information (aid) to our enemies is treason. Snowden did this.
You did write in your first post that
If you’re going to make an absolutist statement like that, people are going to focus on the details. It also sounds like in your view it’s impossible to address these issues without committing treason.
Knorf - you’re just wrong on this treason thing. Give it up.
And this is coming from someone who would be positively gleeful if he spent the rest of his life in prison, right next to Jonathan Pollard, whose espionage other people want to make out as not a big deal.