5 ms·

When I read this, it always makes me wonder what is going through your mind: Being a traitor does not mean someone is wrong or deserving of punishment. The impl

When I read this, it always makes me wonder what is going through your mind: Being a traitor does not mean someone is wrong or deserving of punishment. The implication is that a person's country is always right, and also that if he had been a Russian spy, he would have been a patriot. No. Right and wrong are not governed by national borders and laws.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Well, except in law of course. Then, traitor == wrong and deserving of punishment. Its in the US constitution in fact.
- falcolas 10y ago
  Laws change. The constitution gets amended. There's such a thing as a "positive" defense - guilty, but with a reasonable cause. A jury can even technically nullify a law if they feel it's the right thing to do. Unveiling a trove of illegal projects being undertaken by our government against our wishes would fall into this category in my mind.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    I wish it were so. But I'm thinking it may be impossible to forgive. Prosecutors may resort the the Supreme Court too. If someone technically guilty of treason is found anything but guilty by a lower court, I don't see the Supreme Court having any alternative but to overturn it. But what do I know.
    - mnutt 10y ago
      In the US, a defendant who is acquitted cannot be retried for the same crime. So prosecutors would be unable to appeal to a higher court.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Jury nullification. It's meant for exceptions. Dangerous, but useful for cases like this.
wtbob 10y ago
> When I read this, it always makes me wonder what is going through your mind I don't think Snowden was right. He was, in fact, wrong as a matter of the law and the Constitution. His concerns were misplaced. Okay, that's fine. But then, rather than doing the honourable thing and resigning — and keeping his oath — he betrayed his oath, he betrayed the trust placed in him, stole information he had no right to access in the first place and fled, first to Communist China and then to Neostalinist Russia (rather neatly giving the lie to his claims to care about human rights: the one government harvests organs from religious dissidents and the other detonated bombs in apartment buildings in order to solidify political power). I am thoroughly convinced that a) not all Snowden has alleged is true; b) that which is alleged and true is legal and constitutional; and c) that which is both alleged and true is not something so immoral that despite being legal and constitutional it should be avoided anyway. Moreover, I am convinced that his behaviour meets the standard for treason.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  What would you say is the point of having the power to pardon if doing something illegal is never justifiable, or if our justice system is infallible? If our laws are ever unjust, or our justice system ever fallible, the argument "it was illegal" cannot be used to justify whether something was moral. US law is a terrible basis for morality and that's a super weak argument. Treason is the systemic and illegal invasion of the rights hundreds of millions of Americans, corrupt government officials quashing all means of accountability, lying under oath to congress, intentionally misleading congress and the American people, and refusing to enforce any sort of due process of law when it's been discovered that people were doing highly illegal things.
  - ak4g 10y ago
    Our justice system is not infallible, the OP never claimed that. And so, that's why we have pardons. It's pretty straightforward, if you don't misrepresent his argument. > Treason is the systemic and illegal invasion of the rights hundreds of millions of Americans, corrupt government officials quashing all means of accountability, lying under oath to congress, intentionally misleading congress and the American people, and refusing to enforce any sort of due process of law when it's been discovered that people were doing highly illegal things. I'm sorry, but really really wanting those things to be treasonous does not make them treason. Your gut is not the US Code. The US Code has no provisions that cause things to become treason by chaining enough increasingly emphasizing adjectives together. If you argued this in court, you would lose. For my part: I don't like that Snowden took incredibly serious (forget illegal) actions that served to cast aspersions on both the one and only meaningful US cybersecurity institution and the legitimacy of the United States government as a whole, and is now being harbored by Putin. Are people not seeing what has happened since? Russia is overtly inserting themselves into our domestic politics, and for the political feasibility of doing so, they should be (and by harboring a fugitive, absolutely are) thanking one Edward Joseph Snowden. They're leveraging Assange as another mouthpiece, although there they get to hide behind being "Random Joe Public" donating to wikileaks. (And if you provide cover noise by doing so yourself: Stop. You're being played.) What Snowden's actions predictably precipitated is incredibly ominous. I don't care how much pseudo-"Orwellian" surveillance was going on (that - do people not get this? - was not being abused. There were no mass arrests of people who arranged drug buys on facebook, or via gmail or whatever. Nobody knew it was happening prior to Snowden's actions - which is actually not true at all, anyone paying attention (raises hand) knew since the Room 641a disclosures in, what, 2006? Snowden was merely a far-more willing talking head - but I digress. The point is: if a whistleblower had to tell you they were reading every last email, clearly they weren't exactly doing a lot with that capability!). That does not in any way compare to giving an actual dictator of an an actual authoritarian party and government an unprecedented and dangerous level of leverage and influence and dirt on our democracy. Hell no, go directly to jail, do not collect $200, there doesn't need to be any detente with Moscow until Snowden is extradited. A pardon? Give me a break. As far as I'm concerned, this petition is an instrument of the Kremlin, meant to further extend their ill intent into our country. No.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

Well, except in law of course. Then, traitor == wrong and deserving of punishment. Its in the US constitution in fact.

falcolas 10y ago
Laws change. The constitution gets amended. There's such a thing as a "positive" defense - guilty, but with a reasonable cause. A jury can even technically nullify a law if they feel it's the right thing to do. Unveiling a trove of illegal projects being undertaken by our government against our wishes would fall into this category in my mind.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  I wish it were so. But I'm thinking it may be impossible to forgive. Prosecutors may resort the the Supreme Court too. If someone technically guilty of treason is found anything but guilty by a lower court, I don't see the Supreme Court having any alternative but to overturn it. But what do I know.
  - mnutt 10y ago
    In the US, a defendant who is acquitted cannot be retried for the same crime. So prosecutors would be unable to appeal to a higher court.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
Jury nullification. It's meant for exceptions. Dangerous, but useful for cases like this.

wtbob 10y ago

> When I read this, it always makes me wonder what is going through your mind I don't think Snowden was right. He was, in fact, wrong as a matter of the law and the Constitution. His concerns were misplaced. Okay, that's fine. But then, rather than doing the honourable thing and resigning — and keeping his oath — he betrayed his oath, he betrayed the trust placed in him, stole information he had no right to access in the first place and fled, first to Communist China and then to Neostalinist Russia (rather neatly giving the lie to his claims to care about human rights: the one government harvests organs from religious dissidents and the other detonated bombs in apartment buildings in order to solidify political power). I am thoroughly convinced that a) not all Snowden has alleged is true; b) that which is alleged and true is legal and constitutional; and c) that which is both alleged and true is not something so immoral that despite being legal and constitutional it should be avoided anyway. Moreover, I am convinced that his behaviour meets the standard for treason.

whamlastxmas 10y ago
What would you say is the point of having the power to pardon if doing something illegal is never justifiable, or if our justice system is infallible? If our laws are ever unjust, or our justice system ever fallible, the argument "it was illegal" cannot be used to justify whether something was moral. US law is a terrible basis for morality and that's a super weak argument. Treason is the systemic and illegal invasion of the rights hundreds of millions of Americans, corrupt government officials quashing all means of accountability, lying under oath to congress, intentionally misleading congress and the American people, and refusing to enforce any sort of due process of law when it's been discovered that people were doing highly illegal things.
- ak4g 10y ago
  Our justice system is not infallible, the OP never claimed that. And so, that's why we have pardons. It's pretty straightforward, if you don't misrepresent his argument. > Treason is the systemic and illegal invasion of the rights hundreds of millions of Americans, corrupt government officials quashing all means of accountability, lying under oath to congress, intentionally misleading congress and the American people, and refusing to enforce any sort of due process of law when it's been discovered that people were doing highly illegal things. I'm sorry, but really really wanting those things to be treasonous does not make them treason. Your gut is not the US Code. The US Code has no provisions that cause things to become treason by chaining enough increasingly emphasizing adjectives together. If you argued this in court, you would lose. For my part: I don't like that Snowden took incredibly serious (forget illegal) actions that served to cast aspersions on both the one and only meaningful US cybersecurity institution and the legitimacy of the United States government as a whole, and is now being harbored by Putin. Are people not seeing what has happened since? Russia is overtly inserting themselves into our domestic politics, and for the political feasibility of doing so, they should be (and by harboring a fugitive, absolutely are) thanking one Edward Joseph Snowden. They're leveraging Assange as another mouthpiece, although there they get to hide behind being "Random Joe Public" donating to wikileaks. (And if you provide cover noise by doing so yourself: Stop. You're being played.) What Snowden's actions predictably precipitated is incredibly ominous. I don't care how much pseudo-"Orwellian" surveillance was going on (that - do people not get this? - was not being abused. There were no mass arrests of people who arranged drug buys on facebook, or via gmail or whatever. Nobody knew it was happening prior to Snowden's actions - which is actually not true at all, anyone paying attention (raises hand) knew since the Room 641a disclosures in, what, 2006? Snowden was merely a far-more willing talking head - but I digress. The point is: if a whistleblower had to tell you they were reading every last email, clearly they weren't exactly doing a lot with that capability!). That does not in any way compare to giving an actual dictator of an an actual authoritarian party and government an unprecedented and dangerous level of leverage and influence and dirt on our democracy. Hell no, go directly to jail, do not collect $200, there doesn't need to be any detente with Moscow until Snowden is extradited. A pardon? Give me a break. As far as I'm concerned, this petition is an instrument of the Kremlin, meant to further extend their ill intent into our country. No.