4 ms·

It's remarkable to me the certitude with which the NYT commenters state that Snowden is a traitor. The trust they place in the Intelligence Community that he co

It's remarkable to me the certitude with which the NYT commenters state that Snowden is a traitor. The trust they place in the Intelligence Community that he compromised national security. This despite the proof that in at least one other case, that of Chelsea Manning, the IC lied. This was confirmed yesterday, with the release of Clinton's FBI report[1]. [1]: http://www.vocativ.com/356350/fbi-clinton-spent-long-hours-insisting-manning-leaks-werent-a-threat/ http://www.vocativ.com/356350/fbi-clinton-spent-long-hours-i...

eli 10y ago
Traitor is obviously a loaded term, but Snowden surely broke the law and then fled the consequences. Maybe you think it's a bad law and he had good reasons, but it's not unreasonable for people to believe he should be in jail.
- tanderson92 10y ago
  Actually, traitor is not at all a loaded term. It has a precise meaning as found in Article III of the Constitution: > Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
  - dvt 10y ago
    It's a loaded term because it's at best unclear if Snowden truly had the mens rea (legal experts go back and forth on this). Specifically, whether or not his intent was to aid the US' enemies.
    - tanderson92 10y ago
      To me, mens rea is the entirety of the act of treason. Otherwise, many citizens' individual actions hurt US interests vs our "enemies". That aside, that I still don't see how that implies it is loaded. (by the way, I never objected to people believing he should serve jail time as the GP suggested; my comment concerned the certainty that he was a traitor)
      - dvt 10y ago
        Maybe I misunderstood, but my point is that "treason" is a loaded term because we're not really sure if what he did was treasonous or not. As mentioned, treason needs an "intent to aid enemies" which we're not sure if Snowden had -- experts go back and forth on this. So people just say "treason" to be inflammatory. He definitely broke the law and should probably be in jail, but treason is another ballgame altogether.
  - sparky1990 10y ago
    Snowden is not a US citizen, so "traitor" doesn't even apply.
    - codethief 10y ago
      Since when? AFAIK they only invalidated his passport.
      - cyphar 10y ago
        And since they only invalidated his passport, we can conclude that Snowden doesn't have any other citizenships (it is against international law to make a person stateless, and the US surely would've retracted his citizenship if they could).
- dvt 10y ago
  To add to that, he fled to a country whose legislative and political transgressions far outnumber the United States'. Which, imo, hurts his credibility as a serious seeker of justice.
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    Suppose I believe in non-interventionism. Does my continued stay in the US and participation in its imperalism-based economy mean any efforts of mine for justice are suspect? My point being that there are larger forces guiding our lives than our individual beliefs and actions. Or put another way: as long as Snowden criticizes the transgressions as he sees them of Russia, isn't this what credibility requires?
    - dvt 10y ago
      Frankly, yes. I think Socrates' letter to Crito[1] explains why participating in a society means we embody some of that society's values. If you are truly a hardliner when it comes to non-interventionism, continuing to live and take advantage of the United States' infrastructure and quality of life (which is what it is due to said policies) makes your position suspect. Kind of like eating meat while preaching vegetarianism. [1] http://www.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/crito.pdf http://www.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/crito.pdf
      - tanderson92 10y ago
        Socrates has his logic, I grant you. Socrates died shortly thereafter. Snowden, on the other hand, is still relatively free to shape the public debate and further the fight for Freedom. Who is wiser, who is more strategic? I'm not dissing Socrates here, for what it's worth: I only mean that there is no contract we sign with strict logical adherence when born into an unjust society. I'm also not sure I agree that living in a country means you morally take responsibility for all its ills. I would characterize the responsibility for ills to be those that one is aware of and accepts because of the perceived personal benefit. The point of political opposition is to reject the current order of society.
- alexqgb 10y ago
  Not really. You can't be put in jail without due process, but the law in question explicitly (and arguably, unconstitutionally) suspends due process. You could also argue that the accused "should" be the one to risk conviction and pursue appeals in an effort to get the law in question struck down by the courts, but one could just as easily argue that the government should recognize the obvious abuse and injustice in their reading of the 1918 Espionage Act, and use the power and discretion it has - precisely for cases like this - to extend their recognition of the public service he's done to the abandonment of charges against him. It's hard to make the "yes but rule of law" argument in a case where the law in question is being twisted, stretched, and misapplied as egregiously as it is here. After all, rule of law is a two way street, and in a government ostensibly of, by, and for the people, an impasse like this should resolve itself in favor of the people.
- colordrops 10y ago
  What about the unquestionable traitors at the NSA? Why is all the focus on Snowden?
  - effie 10y ago
    If you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger. This whole traitor-hero argument is a misdirection.
- ACow_Adonis 10y ago
  I don't know. I know there's a class of civic/legal philosophy that says that people should stick around and face the consequences of breaking unjust laws, even if the law is unjust. I admit, despite hearing the position stated, I've never really been able to reconcile why this would be deemed a reasonable position at all. Clearly it plays to the interests of the authorities enacting the unjust laws, who would want people to be within their grasp and thus punished when the law is broken. And it would be beneficial for such people to try to instill in the general populace, and the lawbreakers themselves, beliefs that they should just stick around and "get what's coming to them". But as a general philosophy I admit it seems prima facie absurd to me. If you believe that a law is so unjust that its ok to break it, i really don't see how a reasonable person would expect that a perpetrator should hang around and be punished. Have the strategic option to choose to do so to further one's ends, sure. But a duty or expectation that one should be punished for breaking an unjust law...I just can't compute it. People with a... err...i can't think of a more appropriate word apart from "hard-on", so forgive the vernacular...for authority, sure, i can understand and predict they would have such a position. But I wouldn't call that reasonable. If anything, it sounds like a nice example for an intro into discussing Nietzchean master/slave morality, or even the Ted Kaczynski's concept of oversocialization :P
strictnein 10y ago
He just celebrated his 30th birthday at the Russian consulate in Hong Kong, and then hung out there for a couple of days until they brought him to the airport for his flight to Moscow, but he's totes on the up-and-up and a hero.

eli 10y ago

Traitor is obviously a loaded term, but Snowden surely broke the law and then fled the consequences. Maybe you think it's a bad law and he had good reasons, but it's not unreasonable for people to believe he should be in jail.

tanderson92 10y ago
Actually, traitor is not at all a loaded term. It has a precise meaning as found in Article III of the Constitution: > Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
- dvt 10y ago
  It's a loaded term because it's at best unclear if Snowden truly had the mens rea (legal experts go back and forth on this). Specifically, whether or not his intent was to aid the US' enemies.
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    To me, mens rea is the entirety of the act of treason. Otherwise, many citizens' individual actions hurt US interests vs our "enemies". That aside, that I still don't see how that implies it is loaded. (by the way, I never objected to people believing he should serve jail time as the GP suggested; my comment concerned the certainty that he was a traitor)
    - dvt 10y ago
      Maybe I misunderstood, but my point is that "treason" is a loaded term because we're not really sure if what he did was treasonous or not. As mentioned, treason needs an "intent to aid enemies" which we're not sure if Snowden had -- experts go back and forth on this. So people just say "treason" to be inflammatory. He definitely broke the law and should probably be in jail, but treason is another ballgame altogether.
- sparky1990 10y ago
  Snowden is not a US citizen, so "traitor" doesn't even apply.
  - codethief 10y ago
    Since when? AFAIK they only invalidated his passport.
    - cyphar 10y ago
      And since they only invalidated his passport, we can conclude that Snowden doesn't have any other citizenships (it is against international law to make a person stateless, and the US surely would've retracted his citizenship if they could).
dvt 10y ago
To add to that, he fled to a country whose legislative and political transgressions far outnumber the United States'. Which, imo, hurts his credibility as a serious seeker of justice.
- tanderson92 10y ago
  Suppose I believe in non-interventionism. Does my continued stay in the US and participation in its imperalism-based economy mean any efforts of mine for justice are suspect? My point being that there are larger forces guiding our lives than our individual beliefs and actions. Or put another way: as long as Snowden criticizes the transgressions as he sees them of Russia, isn't this what credibility requires?
  - dvt 10y ago
    Frankly, yes. I think Socrates' letter to Crito[1] explains why participating in a society means we embody some of that society's values. If you are truly a hardliner when it comes to non-interventionism, continuing to live and take advantage of the United States' infrastructure and quality of life (which is what it is due to said policies) makes your position suspect. Kind of like eating meat while preaching vegetarianism. [1] http://www.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/crito.pdf http://www.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/crito.pdf
    - tanderson92 10y ago
      Socrates has his logic, I grant you. Socrates died shortly thereafter. Snowden, on the other hand, is still relatively free to shape the public debate and further the fight for Freedom. Who is wiser, who is more strategic? I'm not dissing Socrates here, for what it's worth: I only mean that there is no contract we sign with strict logical adherence when born into an unjust society. I'm also not sure I agree that living in a country means you morally take responsibility for all its ills. I would characterize the responsibility for ills to be those that one is aware of and accepts because of the perceived personal benefit. The point of political opposition is to reject the current order of society.
alexqgb 10y ago
Not really. You can't be put in jail without due process, but the law in question explicitly (and arguably, unconstitutionally) suspends due process. You could also argue that the accused "should" be the one to risk conviction and pursue appeals in an effort to get the law in question struck down by the courts, but one could just as easily argue that the government should recognize the obvious abuse and injustice in their reading of the 1918 Espionage Act, and use the power and discretion it has - precisely for cases like this - to extend their recognition of the public service he's done to the abandonment of charges against him. It's hard to make the "yes but rule of law" argument in a case where the law in question is being twisted, stretched, and misapplied as egregiously as it is here. After all, rule of law is a two way street, and in a government ostensibly of, by, and for the people, an impasse like this should resolve itself in favor of the people.
colordrops 10y ago
What about the unquestionable traitors at the NSA? Why is all the focus on Snowden?
- effie 10y ago
  If you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger. This whole traitor-hero argument is a misdirection.
ACow_Adonis 10y ago
I don't know. I know there's a class of civic/legal philosophy that says that people should stick around and face the consequences of breaking unjust laws, even if the law is unjust. I admit, despite hearing the position stated, I've never really been able to reconcile why this would be deemed a reasonable position at all. Clearly it plays to the interests of the authorities enacting the unjust laws, who would want people to be within their grasp and thus punished when the law is broken. And it would be beneficial for such people to try to instill in the general populace, and the lawbreakers themselves, beliefs that they should just stick around and "get what's coming to them". But as a general philosophy I admit it seems prima facie absurd to me. If you believe that a law is so unjust that its ok to break it, i really don't see how a reasonable person would expect that a perpetrator should hang around and be punished. Have the strategic option to choose to do so to further one's ends, sure. But a duty or expectation that one should be punished for breaking an unjust law...I just can't compute it. People with a... err...i can't think of a more appropriate word apart from "hard-on", so forgive the vernacular...for authority, sure, i can understand and predict they would have such a position. But I wouldn't call that reasonable. If anything, it sounds like a nice example for an intro into discussing Nietzchean master/slave morality, or even the Ted Kaczynski's concept of oversocialization :P

strictnein 10y ago

He just celebrated his 30th birthday at the Russian consulate in Hong Kong, and then hung out there for a couple of days until they brought him to the airport for his flight to Moscow, but he's totes on the up-and-up and a hero.