4 ms·

No, it isn't plainly treason. This is the definition of treason: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adher

No, it isn't plainly treason. This is the definition of treason: 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. Did the NSA levy war against the US? Did the NSA give aid & comfort to the enemies of the US?

bayesian_horse 7y ago
Particularly it has been ruled that "treason" as per the US constitution or laws is impossible unless war has been declared on a foreign nation.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Makes sense. So that means Snowden cannot be a traitor either or are there exceptions?
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    Not in the criminal sense. He violated several laws around the general topic of national security, he made the work of US intelligence agencies harder and he did endanger US troops abroad. He also helped along Putin's general interest of destabilization. So colloquially, there may be a case to call him a "traitor". It's impossible to clear him from the accusation that he worked with/for a foreign government, maybe even before he fled to Russia. And at the current point in time, he wouldn't be able to refuse any request the Russian government made of him. He also featured in a fake "ask-me-anything" with Putin, just to make that point.
    - raxxorrax 7y ago
      My initial statement was nothing else as colloquial and should be regarded as such of course. I would say implementing mass surveillance would equally make it impossible to clear the NSA from such accusation.
      - varjag 7y ago
        That's not colloquial meaning of treason either. Not that there is particular lack of other suitable words for NSA transgressions.
      - bayesian_horse 7y ago
        The NSA is subject to oversight from all three branches of government. So, to the point that you don't believe two or three entire administrations are/were actively working for a foreign power, you can reasonably assume that the NSA is not committing treason. A lot is going wrong there, but there are limits imposed by the transparency and rule of law. Compare that situation to a country like the Russian Federation.
        ncmncm 7y ago
        Of course that is not to say that any number of people employed by or contracted to the NSA are not committing treason or any of myriad other felonies under cover of NSA-provided secrecy. The only check on that is their higher-ups' jealousy of their income, provided they know of it.
        bayesian_horse 7y ago
        The FBI runs counter-espionage, and a whole host of regulations make sure that it is quite hard to abuse a security clearance. Of course it still happens, but nowhere near as much as if those systems weren't in place.
        ncmncm 7y ago
        Which of course stopped Snowden from collecting gigabytes of random stuff and writing it to NAND flash cards, thus we don't know any of this. The people in counter-espionage are not subject to such regulations, nor are generals, and the evidence is that the only people they are used against are those who make any kind of fuss about rule-breaking or, you know, felonies.
        raxxorrax 7y ago
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
raxxorrax 7y ago
Alright, it doesn't fit here then. But isn't the behavior treasonous towards the constitution that forbids arbitrary data collection. I think their defense here is that nobody actively looks at the data. I think this is bullshit.
- z3phyr 7y ago
  Treason would not be the word I choose. Illegal maybe?
  - SomeOldThrow 7y ago
    Authoritarian works pretty well.
SomeOldThrow 7y ago
> Did the NSA give aid & comfort to the enemies of the US? The US or the people of the US?
fit2rule 7y ago
>Did the NSA give aid & comfort to the enemies of the US? The US suffered a cyberattack that was only possible due to NSA's subversion of Juniper Systems. This could well and truly be considered 'giving aid / comfort to enemies of the USA' ..
- freddie_mercury 7y ago
  That could not "well and truly" be considered that. There is a very clear legal definition of what "enemies of the US" means: countries that the Congress of the United States has declared war on. I don't know why people are so hung up on trying to come up with bizarre explanations for why "treason" must be the right word here. It isn't and the explanations aren't even especially arcane. Just pick a different word already.
  - fit2rule 7y ago
    Afghani hackers can easily exploit Juniper systems. As can Iraq, Iran, and North Korean hackers. So, whatever your particular issue is with 'treason', the fact that the NSA has subverted our - the publics - technology, and in so doing allowed us to be susceptible to real and true danger from 'our enemies', means that yes: the NSA IS FUCKING TREASONOUS.

bayesian_horse 7y ago

Particularly it has been ruled that "treason" as per the US constitution or laws is impossible unless war has been declared on a foreign nation.

raxxorrax 7y ago
Makes sense. So that means Snowden cannot be a traitor either or are there exceptions?
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  Not in the criminal sense. He violated several laws around the general topic of national security, he made the work of US intelligence agencies harder and he did endanger US troops abroad. He also helped along Putin's general interest of destabilization. So colloquially, there may be a case to call him a "traitor". It's impossible to clear him from the accusation that he worked with/for a foreign government, maybe even before he fled to Russia. And at the current point in time, he wouldn't be able to refuse any request the Russian government made of him. He also featured in a fake "ask-me-anything" with Putin, just to make that point.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    My initial statement was nothing else as colloquial and should be regarded as such of course. I would say implementing mass surveillance would equally make it impossible to clear the NSA from such accusation.
    - varjag 7y ago
      That's not colloquial meaning of treason either. Not that there is particular lack of other suitable words for NSA transgressions.
    - bayesian_horse 7y ago
      The NSA is subject to oversight from all three branches of government. So, to the point that you don't believe two or three entire administrations are/were actively working for a foreign power, you can reasonably assume that the NSA is not committing treason. A lot is going wrong there, but there are limits imposed by the transparency and rule of law. Compare that situation to a country like the Russian Federation.
      - ncmncm 7y ago
        Of course that is not to say that any number of people employed by or contracted to the NSA are not committing treason or any of myriad other felonies under cover of NSA-provided secrecy. The only check on that is their higher-ups' jealousy of their income, provided they know of it.
        bayesian_horse 7y ago
        The FBI runs counter-espionage, and a whole host of regulations make sure that it is quite hard to abuse a security clearance. Of course it still happens, but nowhere near as much as if those systems weren't in place.
        ncmncm 7y ago
        Which of course stopped Snowden from collecting gigabytes of random stuff and writing it to NAND flash cards, thus we don't know any of this. The people in counter-espionage are not subject to such regulations, nor are generals, and the evidence is that the only people they are used against are those who make any kind of fuss about rule-breaking or, you know, felonies.
      - raxxorrax 7y ago
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

raxxorrax 7y ago

Alright, it doesn't fit here then. But isn't the behavior treasonous towards the constitution that forbids arbitrary data collection. I think their defense here is that nobody actively looks at the data. I think this is bullshit.

z3phyr 7y ago
Treason would not be the word I choose. Illegal maybe?
- SomeOldThrow 7y ago
  Authoritarian works pretty well.

SomeOldThrow 7y ago

> Did the NSA give aid & comfort to the enemies of the US? The US or the people of the US?

fit2rule 7y ago

>Did the NSA give aid & comfort to the enemies of the US? The US suffered a cyberattack that was only possible due to NSA's subversion of Juniper Systems. This could well and truly be considered 'giving aid / comfort to enemies of the USA' ..

freddie_mercury 7y ago
That could not "well and truly" be considered that. There is a very clear legal definition of what "enemies of the US" means: countries that the Congress of the United States has declared war on. I don't know why people are so hung up on trying to come up with bizarre explanations for why "treason" must be the right word here. It isn't and the explanations aren't even especially arcane. Just pick a different word already.
- fit2rule 7y ago
  Afghani hackers can easily exploit Juniper systems. As can Iraq, Iran, and North Korean hackers. So, whatever your particular issue is with 'treason', the fact that the NSA has subverted our - the publics - technology, and in so doing allowed us to be susceptible to real and true danger from 'our enemies', means that yes: the NSA IS FUCKING TREASONOUS.