6 ms·

Edward Snowden's Father Gives Interview: My Son Is Not A Traitor

78 points by rpm4321 13y ago

fatjokes 13y ago
"My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star!" I know, I know: this isn't Reddit, but I couldn't resist.
josephagoss 13y ago
I think at this point in time we can assume the Government gets the right to define what is a traitor and what is not a traitor. Thus, if the Government says Snowden is a traitor then Snowdon is a traitor. I don't think Snowden is a traitor but the Government gets the final say. Different Governments might have different definitions of what would be a traitor but any sufficiently powerful Government can turn anyone into a traitor if they want to. EDIT: I don't think this is right, but thats the way they work.
- mrchucklepants 13y ago
  That leads to some unnerving scenarios.
- will_brown 13y ago
  Perhaps a little more complex...The legislature should get to define a traitor (the criminal laws anyway); the legal authorities should get to arrest and charge the suspect (then again under the Constitution police powers were reserved for the State, but we say that Constitutional protection whittle away years ago, and now people accept the Federal police powers without question); finally the court should ensure due process and fair trial to every defendant. However, like you elude, when the Executive creates a war on terror complete with special powers to identify individuals and non-state organizations as enemy combatants without any standards or review process, which in turn allows the government to circumvent due process to the point of allowing targeting kill lists and indefinite detentions without any due process or review there is a problem. In fact there is a word for people in power who centralize power and circumvent law and judicial review under the notion of necessity or "nation security"...well anyway we can all be thankful for terms limits (so long as terms limits are not circumvented under the notion of necessity...kind of like Bloomberg in NY)
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > under the Constitution police powers were reserved for the State No, they weren't. There is no such provision anywhere in the Constitution. The states are sometimes described as being different than the federal government under the federal Constitution because the former have general police powers while the latter has limited powers, but the key distinction there is "general" vs. "limited"; both have police powers.
    - will_brown 13y ago
      First, the Constitution gives Powers (to the Gov.) and Rights (to the People), so you are not likely to find a "provision" expressly stating what the Federal Gov. does NOT have the Power to do, however, the Constitution has an Amendment on point: 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." You can look as hard as you want you will not find policing powers delegated to the US government within the Constitution. Ergo police powers, that is the power to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare are reserved to the State. Moreover, " nowhere in the federal Constitution is Congress given authority to regulate local matters concerning the health, safety, and morality of state residents. Known as police powers, such authority is reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment." (See: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tenth+Amendment http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tenth+Amendmen...) In fact your comment proves my point that people accept Federal police power without question, to the point you make an legal argument supporting your point of view (and that of the US Gov.) and provide no support, other than stating "there is no such provision anywhere in the Constitution"
- gyardley 13y ago
  The government most certainly can define what's considered 'treason' in the criminal code and then prosecute accordingly, so I understand where you're coming from. But words can and do have meanings independent of any one entity's attempt to define them, and sometimes it's possible to successfully challenge and change these definitions. For example, consider all the contention in American society around the definition of 'marriage'. The official government definition was not accepted by many, and because of the efforts of those people, the official government definition is changing.
  - wl 13y ago
    Actually, no. The definition of treason is fixed in the Constitution. Congress can only define the penalties. "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. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
    - gyardley 13y ago
      Ah, right you are.
    - will_brown 13y ago
      >or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Guess who defines "enemies"...The Government has the power to define individuals and non-state organizations as enemies. I am willing to bet you (without looking it up), nor a single politician in DC could give an exhaustive list of who our enemies are in the war on terror. So in reality you do not know who you can give or not give aid to without committing treason. In fact to the best of my knowledge the US charges do not specifically identify what enemy Snowden has aided. The reality is even when you look up the list of known enemy combatants or the list of designated terrorist organizations, guess what there is still a secret list, that a.) the public does not know who is on that list (meaning the US citizens, in limited instances, are not even allowed to know who we are at war with, or who our enemies are); b.) US citizens are not even allowed to know the criteria that can get someone on the list. So I ask when we have enemies who are secret how do you know who you can and can not assist? In the case of Al Qaeda, the reality is the US Government was the most responsible for aiding (financing, training, and arming) than any other State I can think of.
tropicalmug 13y ago
This story is not relevant to the privacy issues at hand. This is distracting from the conversation we should be having.
- grandalf 13y ago
  I don't fully agree. The article mentions that Snowden has offered to come back to the US if Holder agrees not to detain him before trial. Certainly a very important piece of news.
  - adaml_623 13y ago
    I disagree with you. Snowden coming back to the US for trial is irrelevant to questions about the actions of the NSA and the behaviour of your government.
    - ithkuil 13y ago
      Perhaps Snowden is afraid of what could happen to him before trial. The fact that his concerns might be well motivated is certainly relevant to the actions of NSA and the behaviour of your government.
  - jccc 13y ago
    Snowden said he has told Attorney General Eric Holder through his lawyer that his son will probably return home if the Justice Department promises not to detain him before a trial nor subject him to a gag order. Lonnie Snowden has not spoken to his son since April, but he fears that Edward may be manipulated by WikiLeaks handlers and would like to get in touch with him. "[...] probably [...]" "[...] has not spoken to his son since April [...]"
  - uptown 13y ago
    NO. It doesn't. The article mentions what his father has said. It says nothing about what Edward Snowden has offered.
- adaml_623 13y ago
sigzero 13y ago
The Government does not want him for being treasonous. The Government wants him for espionage.
- Zikes 13y ago
  If espionage is acquiring information to give to the enemy, and Snowden is wanted for giving information to the American people, does that mean that the Government thinks that the American people are the enemy?
  - Kylekramer 13y ago
    I know this is a Ron Paul line, but the logic doesn't clearly follow. Snowden isn't "wanted for giving information to the American people". He didn't only release information to American citizens. Of course, it is impossible to leak classified information publicly and not leak it to the "enemy", but this particular platitude bugs me. There are many reasons to be upset with the government right now, but the charges against Snowden don't imply the government thinks citizens are the enemy.
    - Spooky23 13y ago
      The definition of "enemy" has moved beyond state affiliation. It's not "the Russians are coming". We're worried about extremists of various ilks these days. So a citizen can be an enemy in the current line of reasoning. Let's be real here -- nobody who follows these issues was surprised by what Snowden said or found it implausible. Our potential nation-state enemies, who are not completely inept, or operate assuming that the NSA had the capabilities described by Snowden. It's publically known that the US compromised Soviet undersea cables almost 40 years ago -- I'm sure Chinese Intelligence didn't assume that that capability still existed today. Anyone who has any business or knows anything about doing business in China knows about the Great Firewall and knows that a State entity has the ability to broadly and deeply monitor network activity.
  - revscat 13y ago
    The simple answer to the question is "yes". The follow-up question is "why"? The evidence seems to be pointing towards the conclusion that there is such vast institutional corruption in place that they are protecting themselves, through intelligence gathering and militarized police forces, from any threat posed from the general population. Intelligence gathering allows them to keep tabs on any movements which threaten or expose them, e.g. Occupy, WikiLeaks, Snowden. They can then coordinate with law enforcement to disable and neutralize them, and the media is used to discredit them.
coin 13y ago
Yet another mobile device hostile site

78 points by rpm4321 13y ago

"My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star!" I know, I know: this isn't Reddit, but I couldn't resist.

josephagoss 13y ago

I think at this point in time we can assume the Government gets the right to define what is a traitor and what is not a traitor. Thus, if the Government says Snowden is a traitor then Snowdon is a traitor. I don't think Snowden is a traitor but the Government gets the final say. Different Governments might have different definitions of what would be a traitor but any sufficiently powerful Government can turn anyone into a traitor if they want to. EDIT: I don't think this is right, but thats the way they work.

mrchucklepants 13y ago
That leads to some unnerving scenarios.
will_brown 13y ago
Perhaps a little more complex...The legislature should get to define a traitor (the criminal laws anyway); the legal authorities should get to arrest and charge the suspect (then again under the Constitution police powers were reserved for the State, but we say that Constitutional protection whittle away years ago, and now people accept the Federal police powers without question); finally the court should ensure due process and fair trial to every defendant. However, like you elude, when the Executive creates a war on terror complete with special powers to identify individuals and non-state organizations as enemy combatants without any standards or review process, which in turn allows the government to circumvent due process to the point of allowing targeting kill lists and indefinite detentions without any due process or review there is a problem. In fact there is a word for people in power who centralize power and circumvent law and judicial review under the notion of necessity or "nation security"...well anyway we can all be thankful for terms limits (so long as terms limits are not circumvented under the notion of necessity...kind of like Bloomberg in NY)
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > under the Constitution police powers were reserved for the State No, they weren't. There is no such provision anywhere in the Constitution. The states are sometimes described as being different than the federal government under the federal Constitution because the former have general police powers while the latter has limited powers, but the key distinction there is "general" vs. "limited"; both have police powers.
  - will_brown 13y ago
    First, the Constitution gives Powers (to the Gov.) and Rights (to the People), so you are not likely to find a "provision" expressly stating what the Federal Gov. does NOT have the Power to do, however, the Constitution has an Amendment on point: 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." You can look as hard as you want you will not find policing powers delegated to the US government within the Constitution. Ergo police powers, that is the power to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare are reserved to the State. Moreover, " nowhere in the federal Constitution is Congress given authority to regulate local matters concerning the health, safety, and morality of state residents. Known as police powers, such authority is reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment." (See: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tenth+Amendment http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tenth+Amendmen...) In fact your comment proves my point that people accept Federal police power without question, to the point you make an legal argument supporting your point of view (and that of the US Gov.) and provide no support, other than stating "there is no such provision anywhere in the Constitution"
gyardley 13y ago
The government most certainly can define what's considered 'treason' in the criminal code and then prosecute accordingly, so I understand where you're coming from. But words can and do have meanings independent of any one entity's attempt to define them, and sometimes it's possible to successfully challenge and change these definitions. For example, consider all the contention in American society around the definition of 'marriage'. The official government definition was not accepted by many, and because of the efforts of those people, the official government definition is changing.
- wl 13y ago
  Actually, no. The definition of treason is fixed in the Constitution. Congress can only define the penalties. "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. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
  - gyardley 13y ago
    Ah, right you are.
  - will_brown 13y ago
    >or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Guess who defines "enemies"...The Government has the power to define individuals and non-state organizations as enemies. I am willing to bet you (without looking it up), nor a single politician in DC could give an exhaustive list of who our enemies are in the war on terror. So in reality you do not know who you can give or not give aid to without committing treason. In fact to the best of my knowledge the US charges do not specifically identify what enemy Snowden has aided. The reality is even when you look up the list of known enemy combatants or the list of designated terrorist organizations, guess what there is still a secret list, that a.) the public does not know who is on that list (meaning the US citizens, in limited instances, are not even allowed to know who we are at war with, or who our enemies are); b.) US citizens are not even allowed to know the criteria that can get someone on the list. So I ask when we have enemies who are secret how do you know who you can and can not assist? In the case of Al Qaeda, the reality is the US Government was the most responsible for aiding (financing, training, and arming) than any other State I can think of.

tropicalmug 13y ago

This story is not relevant to the privacy issues at hand. This is distracting from the conversation we should be having.

grandalf 13y ago
I don't fully agree. The article mentions that Snowden has offered to come back to the US if Holder agrees not to detain him before trial. Certainly a very important piece of news.
- adaml_623 13y ago
  I disagree with you. Snowden coming back to the US for trial is irrelevant to questions about the actions of the NSA and the behaviour of your government.
  - ithkuil 13y ago
    Perhaps Snowden is afraid of what could happen to him before trial. The fact that his concerns might be well motivated is certainly relevant to the actions of NSA and the behaviour of your government.
- jccc 13y ago
  Snowden said he has told Attorney General Eric Holder through his lawyer that his son will probably return home if the Justice Department promises not to detain him before a trial nor subject him to a gag order. Lonnie Snowden has not spoken to his son since April, but he fears that Edward may be manipulated by WikiLeaks handlers and would like to get in touch with him. "[...] probably [...]" "[...] has not spoken to his son since April [...]"
- uptown 13y ago
  NO. It doesn't. The article mentions what his father has said. It says nothing about what Edward Snowden has offered.
adaml_623 13y ago

sigzero 13y ago

The Government does not want him for being treasonous. The Government wants him for espionage.

Zikes 13y ago
If espionage is acquiring information to give to the enemy, and Snowden is wanted for giving information to the American people, does that mean that the Government thinks that the American people are the enemy?
- Kylekramer 13y ago
  I know this is a Ron Paul line, but the logic doesn't clearly follow. Snowden isn't "wanted for giving information to the American people". He didn't only release information to American citizens. Of course, it is impossible to leak classified information publicly and not leak it to the "enemy", but this particular platitude bugs me. There are many reasons to be upset with the government right now, but the charges against Snowden don't imply the government thinks citizens are the enemy.
  - Spooky23 13y ago
    The definition of "enemy" has moved beyond state affiliation. It's not "the Russians are coming". We're worried about extremists of various ilks these days. So a citizen can be an enemy in the current line of reasoning. Let's be real here -- nobody who follows these issues was surprised by what Snowden said or found it implausible. Our potential nation-state enemies, who are not completely inept, or operate assuming that the NSA had the capabilities described by Snowden. It's publically known that the US compromised Soviet undersea cables almost 40 years ago -- I'm sure Chinese Intelligence didn't assume that that capability still existed today. Anyone who has any business or knows anything about doing business in China knows about the Great Firewall and knows that a State entity has the ability to broadly and deeply monitor network activity.
- revscat 13y ago
  The simple answer to the question is "yes". The follow-up question is "why"? The evidence seems to be pointing towards the conclusion that there is such vast institutional corruption in place that they are protecting themselves, through intelligence gathering and militarized police forces, from any threat posed from the general population. Intelligence gathering allows them to keep tabs on any movements which threaten or expose them, e.g. Occupy, WikiLeaks, Snowden. They can then coordinate with law enforcement to disable and neutralize them, and the media is used to discredit them.

coin 13y ago

Yet another mobile device hostile site