- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Well, sometimes one needs to read beyond the founders' scripture, as good as that is. This here might interest you:
"18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason | LII / Legal Information Institute
Now you might not like that or want it changed. But it stands and is applicable as of this time.
Snowden is a patriot. The US Declaration of Independence states that governments that deny the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should be abolished or altered. I believe, like him, that in the past few decades the US government had become tyrannical, with unjust laws and taxation and must be called upon to justify itself or be abolished.
I did not say it did.... however you seem to want to focus on federal law, while I am concern more with constitutional law, which is higher law.
while giving information to a foreign power in not in the interest of the American people, violating constitutional law, is a more serous threat to the American people.
it would be nice to see snowden able to in court viewed by the public, and state what he knows which he considers unconstitutional, only those things which he would deem within constitution law, would by kept away from the public.
however I don't want snowden, thrown in jail never to see or hear from him again, with a trial conducted in secret, I want the story, not what the government has to tell us.
They are seperate issues. Go back and read my premise in my first post. It is that he is a criminal. He broke the law. Thinking you have a good excuse does not change that. Every one has a good excuse for why they break the law. If we ignore the law, if we do not enforce it when not convenient, the end result is very negative.
They are seperate issues. Go back and read my premise in my first post. It is that he is a criminal. He broke the law. Thinking you have a good excuse does not change that. Every one has a good excuse for why they break the law. If we ignore the law, if we do not enforce it when not convenient, the end result is very negative.
I agree completely.
I disagree, though, not completely.
But that doesn't seem to me to be the point. The damage done was not necessary and has harmed the country substantially. Had he published only such information for instance, that showed breeches of US citizens rights and broke US law, it would have still been doubtful, but it could have been argued that it was justified. As it stands, he has committed a crime that must be so harshly punished that nobody does it again.
That is not saying that we do not have to create better procedure for whistle blowers to protect the citizenry against government's infringing their rights. Maybe we could take up, what we have learned from the SEC approach. But that needs doing well to avoid the confusion in people like Snowden's heads and to prevent heroization of criminals.
Well, I say he has helped America and the world...substantially.
And the only proof (I assume) that you have that he has hurt it is the word of the government...which means ZIP to me.
Ron Paul:
'My understanding is that espionage means giving secret or classified information to the enemy. Since Snowden shared information with the American people, his indictment for espionage could reveal (or confirm) that the US Government views you and me as the enemy.'
I disagree, though, not completely.
But that doesn't seem to me to be the point. The damage done was not necessary and has harmed the country substantially. Had he published only such information for instance, that showed breeches of US citizens rights and broke US law, it would have still been doubtful, but it could have been argued that it was justified. As it stands, he has committed a crime that must be so harshly punished that nobody does it again.
That is not saying that we do not have to create better procedure for whistle blowers to protect the citizenry against government's infringing their rights. Maybe we could take up, what we have learned from the SEC approach. But that needs doing well to avoid the confusion in people like Snowden's heads and to prevent heroization of criminals.
Don't be silly. I would never take the word of an interested party. And Paul's statement is about as naive as statements come. You certainly wouldn't want a provincial like that running foreign policy.
PS: Paul also has a dog in the race and quoting him is like taking the government opinion at face value.
Snowden isn't a criminal, as DA60 pointed out. Being a criminal requires being convicted in a court of law by his peers. (If I were on that jury I wouldn't convict if it meant tying up the jury for a year).
Second, so you don't oppose whistle blowers you just oppose this specific one? Did you just not deem the information he offered us worthy enough?
Really now? Someone that confessed to a number of high crimes can safely be considered a criminal. The definition you chose to choose is the second meaning in Webster. Personally I find that someone who commits a crime is a criminal independent of a verdict.
No, I am indifferent to the person. But treason was not necessary to protect the American people.
And as for the jury, we must hope that you don't get on that jury. Selective application of the law is one of the worst things a society can have happen.
Fine, when you show me links to unbiased sources that prove conclusively that Snowden actually did actual damage to America, I might view it.
Until then, all you seem to be going on is the government's word and media hype.
No. He's some guy who saw some nasty **** in the US government programs and wanted to expose them for the good of the citizenry.. and ofc, he didn't wanted to end up in Guantanamo or dead or something, so he ran away. Where? Wherever he could, and that happened to be Russia. Now he is in the hands of a very ruthless and quite despotic man and he has no way to get away from him. So he went from the pot into the kettle or whatever that expression is.
He's not a traitor. he's a good man who wanted to do good but in real life, no good deed goes unpunished. And he was desperate... and he ended up in the wrong place.
What would you consider proof? If you do international media and listened to the politicians around the world or look at the PEW surveys, you could hardly have missed the damage.
Just ask yourself why he published the data concerning perfectly legal operations in foreign countries (of which often the populations were uninformed and did not want to know of) and perfectly legitimate spy activities and methods. Had he published only such information as pertained to the breech of the rights of American citizens there would still be crimes involved but hardly as severe. It would not have been treason.
So let me get this straight: Any law the government makes should be upheld? If the government made it so that black people couldn't drive cars and you were on the jury for a black guy who drove a car, you would convict him just because it's the law? That's rather cowardly.
You obviously consider the American people "the enemy" and think the rights of the state trump the rights of the citizenry.
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." ~ Ron Paul
Why do you avoid the actual problematic behind this issue polemics and not listen to what is actually written? It also seems that you refuse to differentiate between the implications of the various crimes committed. It is not the same crime to publish information on legitimate international spy activity and method as that of infringement on citizens' rights domestically. Had he stuck to the latter, the questions would be quite different and the discussion of legitimacy of his actions would be less absurd.
ANY politician saying he is guilty mans NOTHING to me...no matter which country they are in.
And the media, they cannot know what damage he has done...they can only guess...as can you.
You are saying he has done all this damage, yet you have provided no unbiased, factual evidence of this damage.
You are making the indictment, it is up to you to prove it - not me to disprove it.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Btw - even if you could prove he did damage (which I think is virtually impossible) it would not change my mind in the least...what he did was tremendous for the cause of freedom and justice and liberty. He is a hero.
So answer the question. What would you consider damage? The fact that the trade negotiations have become more difficult and will most likely be more costly to americans? Or the fact that information from allies is less freely available because they no longer think the USA able to keep it confidential? There are lots of this type of damages and I must admit that I can no really believe anyone interested in international relations could not be aware of this. This is so much the case that I suspect such demands of "proof" are usually made knowing how much work it is to collect the evidence combined with no interest in results that contradict the ingrained belief.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?