And did the paper he gave our national security secrets to possess some kind of magical field preventing Mullah Omar from reading it?
Somebody’s paying his rent. Somebody’s buying his groceries. Someone’s telling the cops to look the other way from the illegal immigrant who’s subject to an international arrest warrant.
No. But that still doesn’t make it treason. Unless, of course, you have some legal precedent you’d like to cite…?
I’m not following this. I don’t think the mode of disclosure is what matters. If a U.S. citizen had disclosed troop movements to a paper in WWII for the express purpose of harming the nation’s ability to fight the war, that would be treason, would it not?
There is no doubt that Snowden violated an oath to his government, and intentionally leaked details of spying programs that the government certainly feels has harmed its ability to fight the war on terror. That could certainly be seen as treasonous by some.
On the other hand, you could argue that the government itself was engaging in activities contrary to the Constitution and activities which would in the long run damage the country instead of helping it, and in that context Snowden could be seen as a patriot.
Either way, whether he leaked the material to a newspaper or directly to Vlad Putin is irrelevant.
Indefinite solitary confinement is very safe… in a manner of speaking.
First of all, Vlad Putin is not our “enemy”. We are not at war with Russia.
But there have been innumerable leaks of top secret information over the years. If the mode of leaking does not matter, then it should be easy to find convictions for treason in such cases.
It’s the “adhering to their enemies” parts that makes treason in the US very narrow. You have to actually join the other side, not just leak something to the press. Note that Chelsea Manning (originally Bradley Manning) was not convicted of treason.
One cannot claim to love their country if they show disdain for its government and rule of law. If he has the courage of his convictions, then it is morally incumbent on him to surrender and stand trial. If he’s right, then he will be vindicated by the courts. If he’s treated unfairly and abused, it will only prove to the world the existence of the injustice he claims to be fighting.
His current behavior indicates that his own creature comforts and quality of life are of greater importance than his cause.
A comment like that impresses poorly informed posters on right wing websites. It is not impressive here.
Why do you assume that’s what would happen to him? He’s not a danger to himself or others. Manning was in solitary because of suicidal tendencies. Snowden hasn’t shown any intent to commit suicide or martyr himself - quite the opposite, in fact.
I think you meant: In a Manning of speaker.
Because that’s what happens in these cases.
If the government said he was, you would believe them. And if he were locked up alone long enough, it might even be true.
Amnesty International may like to now campaign for all Political Refugees to be returned to sender, on the general principle of Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex.
By the way,** Vlad Putin** sounds like a Star Wars villain. Not that I’ve ever seen it.
Cite for that being “what happens” to US citizens charged with espionage in a civilian court of law?
I asked this in another thread: is there a name for this tactic? I’m talking about someone asks a question but betrays their lack of a case by excluding a huge swath of relevant details - and not even being subtle about it? The Obama administration continues to detain people indefinitely and continues to adopt shockingly harsh tactics with leakers, including using charges far out of proportion with the alleged offenses. Snowden is part of a pattern in this regard. And of course if they made up an excuse to indefinitely detain Snowden, you’d believe it because you’re a dipshit. (People who call you a fascist are associating you with people who are far too accomplished.) I realize you’d like to frame this in a way that excludes everyone else so a comparison can’t be made, but the rest of us can retain the facts. Sorry!
I totally love my country and always have. I have shown disdain for its government on more occasions than I can count. As for the rule of law, that is only the first step towards civilization, law without justice is counterfeit, it is little more than brute force codified.
“Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it.”
- Mark Twain
Smapti is JAQing off.
It’s not JAQing off, though. It’s asking such a nit-picky question that you wind up acknowledging the holes in your argument. It’s like if Smapti had said “Cite for that being “what happens” to guys named Ed!” It makes it obvious you know it’s happened to plenty of people not named Ed.
Who is being “detained indefinitely”? And what “shockingly harsh tactics” are being employed which are “out of proportion”?
And how are those cases in any way analgous to this one?
Justice is unattainable when the law is not respected. To claim you support a country while encouraging the violation of its laws leads only to anarchy and barbarism.
Smapti, I’m glad you’re picking up the slack Rand Rover left us after his departure.