3 ms·

Would like to hear opinions of people who voted neutral or traitor (not so I can jump on them, just am curious as to the reasoning).

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- protomyth 13y ago
  Technically, in the USA, treason and traitor have a very specific meaning. Article 3 section 3 of the US Constitution defines treason as: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in war, 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 closed 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.
protomyth 13y ago
I would have probably voted Neutral if I hadn't seen this http://reason.com/reasontv/2014/01/10/this-is-a-secret-government-exclaims-nsa http://reason.com/reasontv/2014/01/10/this-is-a-secret-gover... about the original whistleblowers and how ineffective internal channels were.
- doktrin 13y ago
  Agreed. I have mixed feelings on this issue, but the argument that he should have reported internally is laughable. Right or wrong, the only way he could have feasibly remedied the situation he perceived was to go the public route. The only question is whether or not he accurately evaluated the situation and its solution.
Retric 13y ago
I voted neutral because he released information that while classified was also IMO fairly common knowledge making his action closer to a political statement vs treason. I recall reading about a similar database the FBI had which was leaked and used to out several undercover drug agents which where then killed. As to mass surveillance my objection is it's mostly an ineffective and massive waste of resources when applied to terrorism. The FBI's use case is actually far more reasonable because drug's are a much more common issue. However, there is simply not enough terrorists to get a good signal to noise ratio. Sure, you will 'find' terrorists that way but like 9/11 and the Boston marathon bombings demonstrate if all an agent see is false positives 99.9% of the time he is going to treat that 0.1% signal as just more noise.
binxbolling 13y ago
One might also be inclined to vote "neutral" if he/she finds the words "traitor" and "hero" to be gross exaggerations, unhelpful, and a bit melodramatic. For example, a less overwrought question might ask something along the lines of, "Did Snowden's actions result in a net positive or a net negative?" Obviously that question could use work, too, but at least then I (as just one example) could make a vote that says, in essence, "Yes, I think Snowden performed a valuable service which, on the whole, was positive, even though I don't buy into the notion of 'hero' very much and am not at all sure that even if I did that Snowden would qualify."
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jonnathanson 13y ago
I voted "hero," along with what seems like everyone else on this site. But I would have voted somewhere below that tier if the option existed. To me, "Hero" is too strong a choice to characterize my feelings, but "Neutral" is too weak. I am not sure what a word like "Neutral" means in this context. Does it mean I don't have an opinion? Does it mean I don't really care about the topic? Does it mean I'm still making up my mind? Does it mean I'd put my opinion of him at somewhere between 4 and 6 on a 10-point value scale? My point is, "Neutral" is a single value attempting to capture a wide range of possibilities, many of which are orthogonal or even contradictory to each other. Each of those possibilities is a valid choice, but because few people will look at "Neutral" from the same perspective, fewer people will select it. (That's just my guess, at any rate.) Its range of semantic meaning is so broad as to become almost meaningless. I would describe my opinion as "The ends were valid, but they don't seem to justify leaping to the means that Snowden used. On the balance, however, he did what needed to be done." Our system offers whistleblowers a range of options incrementally less extreme than the course of action he took. Maybe he'd already tried to go down that road? Maybe he feared he'd be taken down before he could air things through legitimate channels? Not sure. I don't feel that I have enough background information to make that call. Tl;dr - If "1" is "He's the devil incarnate," and 10 is "He's the best thing for our country since Abe Lincoln," I guess I'd rate him a 6-7. History may revise my opinion upward, however, as more information about his circumstances comes to light. It seems unlikely I'll revise my opinion downward, especially as I learn more about what vile shit the NSA, et al., were up to.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

protomyth 13y ago
Technically, in the USA, treason and traitor have a very specific meaning. Article 3 section 3 of the US Constitution defines treason as: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in war, 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 closed 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.

protomyth 13y ago

I would have probably voted Neutral if I hadn't seen this http://reason.com/reasontv/2014/01/10/this-is-a-secret-government-exclaims-nsa http://reason.com/reasontv/2014/01/10/this-is-a-secret-gover... about the original whistleblowers and how ineffective internal channels were.

doktrin 13y ago
Agreed. I have mixed feelings on this issue, but the argument that he should have reported internally is laughable. Right or wrong, the only way he could have feasibly remedied the situation he perceived was to go the public route. The only question is whether or not he accurately evaluated the situation and its solution.

Retric 13y ago

I voted neutral because he released information that while classified was also IMO fairly common knowledge making his action closer to a political statement vs treason. I recall reading about a similar database the FBI had which was leaked and used to out several undercover drug agents which where then killed. As to mass surveillance my objection is it's mostly an ineffective and massive waste of resources when applied to terrorism. The FBI's use case is actually far more reasonable because drug's are a much more common issue. However, there is simply not enough terrorists to get a good signal to noise ratio. Sure, you will 'find' terrorists that way but like 9/11 and the Boston marathon bombings demonstrate if all an agent see is false positives 99.9% of the time he is going to treat that 0.1% signal as just more noise.

binxbolling 13y ago

One might also be inclined to vote "neutral" if he/she finds the words "traitor" and "hero" to be gross exaggerations, unhelpful, and a bit melodramatic. For example, a less overwrought question might ask something along the lines of, "Did Snowden's actions result in a net positive or a net negative?" Obviously that question could use work, too, but at least then I (as just one example) could make a vote that says, in essence, "Yes, I think Snowden performed a valuable service which, on the whole, was positive, even though I don't buy into the notion of 'hero' very much and am not at all sure that even if I did that Snowden would qualify."

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jonnathanson 13y ago

I voted "hero," along with what seems like everyone else on this site. But I would have voted somewhere below that tier if the option existed. To me, "Hero" is too strong a choice to characterize my feelings, but "Neutral" is too weak. I am not sure what a word like "Neutral" means in this context. Does it mean I don't have an opinion? Does it mean I don't really care about the topic? Does it mean I'm still making up my mind? Does it mean I'd put my opinion of him at somewhere between 4 and 6 on a 10-point value scale? My point is, "Neutral" is a single value attempting to capture a wide range of possibilities, many of which are orthogonal or even contradictory to each other. Each of those possibilities is a valid choice, but because few people will look at "Neutral" from the same perspective, fewer people will select it. (That's just my guess, at any rate.) Its range of semantic meaning is so broad as to become almost meaningless. I would describe my opinion as "The ends were valid, but they don't seem to justify leaping to the means that Snowden used. On the balance, however, he did what needed to be done." Our system offers whistleblowers a range of options incrementally less extreme than the course of action he took. Maybe he'd already tried to go down that road? Maybe he feared he'd be taken down before he could air things through legitimate channels? Not sure. I don't feel that I have enough background information to make that call. Tl;dr - If "1" is "He's the devil incarnate," and 10 is "He's the best thing for our country since Abe Lincoln," I guess I'd rate him a 6-7. History may revise my opinion upward, however, as more information about his circumstances comes to light. It seems unlikely I'll revise my opinion downward, especially as I learn more about what vile shit the NSA, et al., were up to.