Moderator: Community Team
patches70 wrote:John Boehner called NSA leaker Edward Snowden a ātraitorā. But is that accurate?
In the United States treason is specifically named and described in the Constitution, the only crime thus defined in the Constitution. It reads like this-
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
To be guilty of treason one must be a citizen and be levying war against the US or giving aid to her enemies.
Snowden gave classified information to the press. Is the press our enemy? Are they waging war against the US?
Snowden isn't guilty of treason, not even close. Sedition, espionage, passing classified information, a case can certainly be made for that, but not treason.
It's funny, though, Snowden may be guilty of sedition (which is defined in part as subversion of a constitution) but what the NSA has been doing is also a subversion of the constitution and thus are equally guilty of subversion as is any and all who subvert the US Constitution. If we want to get technical.
So, do you think this Snowden fellow is a traitor?
karel wrote:he should be hung
patches70 wrote:John Boehner called NSA leaker Edward Snowden a ātraitorā. But is that accurate?
patches70 wrote:To be guilty of treason one must be a citizen and be levying war against the US or giving aid to her enemies.
karel wrote:he is a traitor...enough said
karel wrote:he is a traitor...enough said
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:*hanged
curtains are hung.
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:*hanged
curtains are hung.
-TG
Woodruff wrote:TA1LGUNN3R wrote:*hanged
curtains are hung.
While I know you're right, why IS that? I mean...aren't they both in the act of hanging? What's the entymological rationale for the difference?
Lootifer wrote:BBS is right; technically he is a traitor. However the assistance he gave to the enemy is likely very small.
edit: note that I have not really been following the bulk of the NSA stuff nor have a great interest. I am just basing my comment on the definition: he gave information to the press; the press made that information public; the USA's enemies have access to public information... QED.
Lootifer wrote:BBS is right; technically he is a traitor. However the assistance he gave to the enemy is likely very small.
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Lootifer wrote:BBS is right; technically he is a traitor. However the assistance he gave to the enemy is likely very small.
edit: note that I have not really been following the bulk of the NSA stuff nor have a great interest. I am just basing my comment on the definition: he gave information to the press; the press made that information public; the USA's enemies have access to public information... QED.
Under this reasoning anybody can be charged for just about anything. You're a store clerk, you sell some sudafed to a guy. He uses it to cook meth and sells it. Now you're guilty of manufacturing and delivery of narcotics. QED.
Night Strike wrote:The government is working to make it illegal for a person to inform the public of the government acting illegally. They praise it when a private sector person blows the whistle on illegal business activities, but they turn around and make it illegal for the same whistleblowing to happen within the government.
notyou2 wrote:Night Strike wrote:The government is working to make it illegal for a person to inform the public of the government acting illegally. They praise it when a private sector person blows the whistle on illegal business activities, but they turn around and make it illegal for the same whistleblowing to happen within the government.
Am I in danger of agreeing with NS????
Phatscotty wrote:Yes, this traitor was aiding the enemy. The enemy being the rights of the American people, and he sold out the government.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users