The answer to your question is in the part of the sentence you didn’t excerpt. The administration has been extremely harsh on leakers. In general it treats them as spies, which is legally and ethically dubious. Snowden is not the first. It’s an unfortunate part of their hostility toward the press.
They’re all cases involving the prosecution of leakers. Of course, again, you’re already aware of the protracted detention of Manning. I think the question is what’s the significant difference since you’re trying to hang your hat on trivial distinctions.
Kerry, Snowden, and Obama haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory for their actions and inactions. The difference between the three is that history may change its verdict on Snowden. Kerry’s historic reputation will linger only among historians. Obama’s may improve over time if the ACA is a success, which it appears is probable.
Will Snowden be more like Daniel Ellsberg or Julius Rosenberg? My guess is that the police state Snowden further exposed will not be rolled back.
And how is that analgous to Snowden? It isn’t. Manning is Army and is subject to the UCMJ and military discipline, which Snowden would not and cannot be because he is neither a member of the armed forces nor an enemy combatant as defined by federal law.
Which they are. The language of the Espionage Act is clear; unlawful acquisition, possession, and distribution of classified documents relating to national security operations is espionage.
What hostility toward the press?
Again; Manning was tried in a military court and Snowden will be tried in a civilian court, and there’s no evidence that Snowden is a threat to his own safety as was the case with Manning, who had to be confined for his own protection. The government is not some evil cabal that gets its jollies off unnecessary confinement, and I see no reason to believe that Snowden would be treated unfairly by the judicial system or that the government would “make up” an excuse to treat him poorly.
Cute. My question is valid. The people Marley has named as examples for “this is what happens” are 1) A volunteer member of the US armed forces who is subject to military discipline and 2) A foreign national captured in international waters while engaged in the act of piracy. Neither of these cases are in any way analogous to the situation of an American citizen being tried in a civilian court for violating a federal law, and there is no valid reason to assume that what happened in the above-cited cases would happen in this one other than “the government is evil and gets its rocks off on torturing the heroic defenders of liberty”.
[QUOTE=Douglas Adams]
“Ah,” said Arthur, “this is obviously some strange usage of the word safe that I wasn’t previously aware of.”
[/QUOTE]
One can certainly love one’s country while being clear that something has gone terribly wrong with one aspect of its government and the area of law pertaining to it.
Really, do you believe loving one’s country is an all-or-nothing proposition?
Why should he believe that if he’s right, he will be vindicated by the courts? And why should he spend the next few decades in prison to prove to the world the existence of the injustice he’s fighting? He’s already been getting the word out pretty well, and he’s let the evidence he’s produced speak for itself. Has anyone worth listening to claimed that evidence is doctored? Case closed.
I already addressed that here, in a part of that post that you’ve already pretended to respond to. Looks like we’re going in circles.
It proves that his beliefs are worth going to prison for, which, right now, they apparently aren’t.
You can certainly love your country and disagree with its government, but what you cannot do is love a country while ignoring its laws. If you have a problem with the way things are being done, you fight it through the system.
Positivist horsefeathers. Some laws are badly designed, some authorities are corrupt, and some rulers cannot be trusted to behave honorably.
Also, kind of funny you think Snowden is the one, “encouraging the violation of its laws,” when he exposed criminal wrongdoing on the part of his employer.
He’s in exile in Russia. That’s not good enough for you? Wow.
You are like a Bizarro World conspiracy theorist. Pigshit-happy to believe that black is white, down is up, and that you shouldn’t worry your pretty little head about what’s going on under the covers as long as your government tells you it’s so. Even when someone like Snowden draws the covers back, you screw up your eyes and jam your fingers into your ears. The quintessential Citizen Mushroom.
Well, why should they be, unless his risking prison would be more likely to bring about his goals?
I mean, I have beliefs too, and if push comes to shove, some of them would be worth risking prison for. But at present, there’s no strategic reason for me to commit actions that would court the risk of prison. AFAICT, the same is true of Snowden.
And suppose there is no ‘system’ for getting the word out about a particular governmental abuse? Because that seems to have been the case about abuses by our intelligence agencies.
The courts in your universe must come in all the colors of the rose.
Just curious, is there anyone here who thinks Snowden is a traitor but does not agree with what the government has done? Or vice versa? It seems that the whole argument boils down to how one feels about the programs that Snowden uncovered. If you’re like Smapti and thinks what the government is doing is great and should continue to be able to secretly do them, then you’re going to think Snowden’s betrayal was the worst possible thing. Its pointless to argue with him on Snowden, you should actually just argue about whether the spying programs are a good thing or not
I’m against the programs in question, but more foundationally, I’m a small-d democrat. While I don’t believe we need to know the ins and outs of every government spying program, I believe we not only have a right, but a need, to know (at least in outline) what’s being done in our name.
When we don’t have that, we don’t have a democracy; we’ve got a hidden government. Whether I believe the programs should continue or not is secondary for me to whether we, the people, are the ones to make the decision on whether they should.
And that is why I regard Snowden as not only a hero, but a necessary hero. We know these things now. What the people of the United States choose to do about it is important, but less important than having the opportunity to make that choice.
If he’s correct about the programs being illegal, then there is no risk of prison. The only way his standing trial would put him in risk of prison is if he’s wrong. His behavior indicates that this is what he believes.
There is always a system to deal with abuse. That’s why there are laws protecting whistleblowers. The fact that he chose to commit treason instead of taking the lawful approach indicates that he knows the programs are not abusive.
The courts always come around to the right decision in the end. That’s their job.
No, we don’t need to know about these things, because knowing about them means that the bad guys know about them too, and because the general public are too ill-informed and miseducated to make decisions on these matters that are in their best interest. People would rather embrace some abstract concept of “freedom” than accept the existence of a program that keeps them safe and does them no harm.
