He's called a "traitor"

[stahrgazer]

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.

First, he is guilty of espionage, by intentionally gaining "secrets" for the sole purpose of sharing those secrets - supposedly he admitted he took his job solely in order to gain "secret" information.

He is not necessarily guilty of "sedition" since "sedition" requires offensive type language against the US.(He may or may not have used foul language, but unless he did, it's not sedition.)

An argument could be made that because he set out to gain - and release - United States "secrets" he has 'declared war" on the United States.

Traditional warfare includes armed conflict, but given that US law is based on precedent/origins and precise meanings of words, then an understanding of the history of the word is in order.

The English word war derives from the late Old English (c.1050) words wyrre and werre; the Old North French werre; the Frankish werra; and the Proto-Germanic werso. The denotation of war derives from the Old Saxon werran, Old High German werran, and the German verwirren: “to confuse”, “to perplex”, and “to bring into confusion”.

See, if "war" is derived from words meaning confuse, perplex; then certainly it's a reasonable argument that he deliberately set about to "confuse things" for the United States and hence, "declared war," on the nation.

An argument could also be made that release of some of these "secrets" has "aided" our enemies, and that would be true even if the enemies had other ways to gain the same info.

[karel]

better yet,call in seal team 6 and kill the sob

[Teflon Kris]

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.

We seem to have the reverse over here - try to whistle-blow about a private company and nobody is interested, no public body can be bothered to act and the press cant be bothered if the fraud isnt billions.

Sadly, corporate and institutional corruption is rife everywhere, the media select a few snippets for us to talk about, and we watch fat cats and representatives get pay-offs, sell stories and become directors elsewhere. Then we get threatened if we make a mistake on our tax return, or some other paperwork is late or out of place.

Even sadder, we just seem to accept that this is the way things are, and spend hours of our time doing the establishments paperwork for them, or sorting out corporations services and mistakes for them (that they are charging us for). How much time do we all spend registering online and changing passwords for them? Not only do we not get paid for this work, we have to foot the expenses (postage, electric, telephone) ourselves. I'm sure the rat race is getting worse.

[BigBallinStalin]

Do Americans really care about what the NSA does? If so, what kind of actions are they willing to take?

From what I've seen over the past 12 years, "No," and "not enough."

Does that mean that most Americans support their government's decisions in these matters? Or do they simply not care enough (e.g. most potential voters don't participate in elections)?

I don't know what meaningful action I can take to help change the way the NSA runs. Can someone please guide me? BBS, perhaps share your experiences in this matter?

Perhaps your utilitarianism will guide your head from your anus? Since the pleasure fails to offset the pain, then I doubt that'll stop!

(not @Mets)

Here's the conclusions which people should be drawing:


1. Don't be naive about the political process.

That's a real good one that more people need to adopt.

2. There's not much of a difference between Democrats and Republicans in matters of National Security.

So, the idea of voting for Obama because he's going to be... more peaceful, or would end what Bush and that Congress started, is erroneous.

3. Don't believe the rhetoric.

So many people bought Obama's horseshit, and now they're surprised? See #1.

It's not that hard to draw such conclusions, but what explains why voters fail to update?

It's like they've got a broken feedback loop.

[BigBallinStalin]

well all you idiots think this dick bag is a hero,well when we have another 9/11 ,im sure you all will be very,very happy about it,then you all can bitch that the nsa did not stop it,get a life

well if you were talking about shit to blow something up or say certian words,or plans on killing the president,then you deserve to be tap with out warning,,with out the nsa we are less safer,so just get over it

Do you think the purpose of government is to make us as safe as possible?

[karel]

like i said i have no problem what the nsa is doing

[Metsfanmax]

Do Americans really care about what the NSA does? If so, what kind of actions are they willing to take?

From what I've seen over the past 12 years, "No," and "not enough."

Does that mean that most Americans support their government's decisions in these matters? Or do they simply not care enough (e.g. most potential voters don't participate in elections)?

I don't know what meaningful action I can take to help change the way the NSA runs. Can someone please guide me? BBS, perhaps share your experiences in this matter?

Perhaps your utilitarianism will guide your head from your anus? Since the pleasure fails to offset the pain, then I doubt that'll stop!

(not @Mets)

Here's the conclusions which people should be drawing:


1. Don't be naive about the political process.

That's a real good one that more people need to adopt.

2. There's not much of a difference between Democrats and Republicans in matters of National Security.

So, the idea of voting for Obama because he's going to be... more peaceful, or would end what Bush and that Congress started, is erroneous.

3. Don't believe the rhetoric.

So many people bought Obama's horseshit, and now they're surprised? See #1.

It's not that hard to draw such conclusions, but what explains why voters fail to update?

It's like they've got a broken feedback loop.

My question stands. If I choose not to believe the rhetoric, what can I do to meaningfully change the way the NSA operates?

[thegreekdog]

what can I do to meaningfully change the way the NSA operates?

Step One (easiest step): Vote for someone who will change the way the NSA operates (and tell your friends).
Step Two (slightly harder): Campaign for someone who will change the way the NSA operates.
Step Three (hard): Run for office to change the way the NSA operates.
Step Four (suicidal): Rebel.

I mean, for f*ck's sake, at least vote for a real Democrat.

[Metsfanmax]

what can I do to meaningfully change the way the NSA operates?

Step One (easiest step): Vote for someone who will change the way the NSA operates (and tell your friends).
Step Two (slightly harder): Campaign for someone who will change the way the NSA operates.

But what do I do if I agree with a candidate on a number of issues, but disagree with them on the NSA's abilities? Where do I rank that in my priority list?

The point I'm trying to make is that voting is often the least influential thing you can do to change any particular policy. Writing letters to your representatives and writing to your local newspaper's LTE or op-ed section is much more effective.

[thegreekdog]

what can I do to meaningfully change the way the NSA operates?

Step One (easiest step): Vote for someone who will change the way the NSA operates (and tell your friends).
Step Two (slightly harder): Campaign for someone who will change the way the NSA operates.

But what do I do if I agree with a candidate on a number of issues, but disagree with them on the NSA's abilities? Where do I rank that in my priority list?

The point I'm trying to make is that voting is often the least influential thing you can do to change any particular policy. Writing letters to your representatives and writing to your local newspaper's LTE or op-ed section is much more effective.

Rank it where you want to rank it.

I disagree that either of those are more effective than voting. I prefer Step Two, but writing letters to the editor is "tell your friends." And letters to your representative are unlikely to be read. Voting at least gives a result (albeit just one... which is why you have to tell your friends).

[Metsfanmax]

what can I do to meaningfully change the way the NSA operates?

Step One (easiest step): Vote for someone who will change the way the NSA operates (and tell your friends).
Step Two (slightly harder): Campaign for someone who will change the way the NSA operates.

But what do I do if I agree with a candidate on a number of issues, but disagree with them on the NSA's abilities? Where do I rank that in my priority list?

The point I'm trying to make is that voting is often the least influential thing you can do to change any particular policy. Writing letters to your representatives and writing to your local newspaper's LTE or op-ed section is much more effective.

Rank it where you want to rank it.

I disagree that either of those are more effective than voting. I prefer Step Two, but writing letters to the editor is "tell your friends." And letters to your representative are unlikely to be read. Voting at least gives a result (albeit just one... which is why you have to tell your friends).

Letters to your representative are likely to be read. Not necessarily by the representative, but usually by someone on staff at least. If you don't believe me, call up your representative's office and ask.

The problem with voting is that if you vote for a candidate and then lose, now what? You've accomplished effectively nothing. If you are serious about an issue, you have to convince whoever is in office to feel the way you do, not just vote for someone and hope that they will do what they said they would during the campaign (*cough*). Citizenship starts at the ballot box, it doesn't end there.

[Woodruff]

well all you idiots think this dick bag is a hero,well when we have another 9/11 ,im sure you all will be very,very happy about it,then you all can bitch that the nsa did not stop it,get a life

We did have another one. These measures didn't stop the Boston Bombings.

[Woodruff]

And letters to your representative are unlikely to be read.

Letters to your representative are likely to be read. Not necessarily by the representative, but usually by someone on staff at least. If you don't believe me, call up your representative's office and ask.

This really is true. Tabs, at the very least, are kept as to what issues folks are writing about and where they stand on them, which ARE passed to the representatives.

[Woodruff]

"My understanding is that espionage means giving secret or classified information to the enemy. Since Snowden shared information with the American people, his indictment for espionage could reveal (or confirm) that the US Government views you and me as the enemy."
Ron Paul

Actually, and Ron Paul certainly should know this, it appears that he has also recently provided some information to China regarding our activities involving them. So while I certainly don't disagree with Ron Paul's sentiment here, there is some legitimacy to the espionage charge in light of this.

I have to agree. But I wonder if he knew anything to tell the Chinese that they didn't already know.

While probably true, that still provides intelligence information in the form of verification/substantiation. Having information from two sources is better than having it from one for the purposes of knowing the validity of the information.

[thegreekdog]

what can I do to meaningfully change the way the NSA operates?

Step One (easiest step): Vote for someone who will change the way the NSA operates (and tell your friends).
Step Two (slightly harder): Campaign for someone who will change the way the NSA operates.

But what do I do if I agree with a candidate on a number of issues, but disagree with them on the NSA's abilities? Where do I rank that in my priority list?

The point I'm trying to make is that voting is often the least influential thing you can do to change any particular policy. Writing letters to your representatives and writing to your local newspaper's LTE or op-ed section is much more effective.

Rank it where you want to rank it.

I disagree that either of those are more effective than voting. I prefer Step Two, but writing letters to the editor is "tell your friends." And letters to your representative are unlikely to be read. Voting at least gives a result (albeit just one... which is why you have to tell your friends).

Letters to your representative are likely to be read. Not necessarily by the representative, but usually by someone on staff at least. If you don't believe me, call up your representative's office and ask.

The problem with voting is that if you vote for a candidate and then lose, now what? You've accomplished effectively nothing. If you are serious about an issue, you have to convince whoever is in office to feel the way you do, not just vote for someone and hope that they will do what they said they would during the campaign (*cough*). Citizenship starts at the ballot box, it doesn't end there.

I've worked for representatives, worked on campaigns, and have written letters. Letters have no effect in my experience.

[Metsfanmax]

what can I do to meaningfully change the way the NSA operates?

Step One (easiest step): Vote for someone who will change the way the NSA operates (and tell your friends).
Step Two (slightly harder): Campaign for someone who will change the way the NSA operates.

But what do I do if I agree with a candidate on a number of issues, but disagree with them on the NSA's abilities? Where do I rank that in my priority list?

The point I'm trying to make is that voting is often the least influential thing you can do to change any particular policy. Writing letters to your representatives and writing to your local newspaper's LTE or op-ed section is much more effective.

Rank it where you want to rank it.

I disagree that either of those are more effective than voting. I prefer Step Two, but writing letters to the editor is "tell your friends." And letters to your representative are unlikely to be read. Voting at least gives a result (albeit just one... which is why you have to tell your friends).

Letters to your representative are likely to be read. Not necessarily by the representative, but usually by someone on staff at least. If you don't believe me, call up your representative's office and ask.

The problem with voting is that if you vote for a candidate and then lose, now what? You've accomplished effectively nothing. If you are serious about an issue, you have to convince whoever is in office to feel the way you do, not just vote for someone and hope that they will do what they said they would during the campaign (*cough*). Citizenship starts at the ballot box, it doesn't end there.

I've worked for representatives, worked on campaigns, and have written letters. Letters have no effect in my experience.

The issue there is that it's hard to quantify. Any individual letter is not going to sway a representative's mind, unless you have established yourself particularly as an expert on a subject, in which case they will call on the experts in their district to help explain things to them. But as Woodruff says, the sum total of those is important. The same as letters to the editor in newspapers -- the representatives are reading those newspapers to see what their constituents think. I've seen this happen at the climate lobbying organization where I've been volunteering lately. Much more effective than a letter is actually securing a meeting with the staff or with the representative and talking with them. Or going to a town hall meeting and asking a question on the subject. We've found that if you establish yourself as someone with credibility on a particular issue, the representative will often call you when they don't understand some issue (in this case, related to global warming), and that makes you much more effective than just one voice with one vote.

There seems to be this ethos in modern America where it's not possible for a person to actually talk to his or her representative. That's nonsense, you can get a meeting with your representative if you're committed enough (and persistent enough).

[Frigidus]

like i said i have no problem what the nsa is doing

I have no problem that people feel this way, but I do wish they would stop simultaneously pretending they like the Constitution.

[waauw]

like i said i have no problem what the nsa is doing

Not even when it also involves spying on some of your allies, whom get pissed off about it as a result?
I hope America doesn't pull off too many of these stunts or it may seriously damage international relations.

[muy_thaiguy]

like i said i have no problem what the nsa is doing

Not even when it also involves spying on some of your allies, whom get pissed off about it as a result?
I hope America doesn't pull off too many of these stunts or it may seriously damage international relations.

I'd be surprised if they're not spying on us, truthfully. Same goes for countries like Iran, Russia, China, and maybe North Korea. You know how the old saying goes; "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer."

All said and done, after thinking things through, I can see why the US government is labeling him as a traitor. He flees to Hong Kong, waits sometime, releases his first info, states he won't release other stuff to the media before going through it, and judging himself what is suitable. Its certainly not out of the realm of possibility he sold classified info to one of the US's enemies.

On the flip side, what he exposed, yeah, that's not very good for the US government, who was already making people mad. As can be seen on here. Though, doesn't the Patriot Act give the US government the reasons to wiretap phones?

[Woodruff]

On the flip side, what he exposed, yeah, that's not very good for the US government, who was already making people mad. As can be seen on here. Though, doesn't the Patriot Act give the US government the reasons to wiretap phones?

The excuse you mean? I suppose. I don't think most people who are very aware of what the Patriot Act actually does are big fans of it either, though.

[Frigidus]

So Ecuador extended us a big middle finger after renowned fascist Senator Bob Menendez tried to strong arm them into not granting Snowden asylum.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... s/2463465/

A couple of quotes from the article:

Ecuador said Thursday it is renouncing a trade pact up for renewal by the U.S. Congress because it had become a "new instrument of blackmail" involving the fate of an NSA leaker who has asked for political asylum from the South American country.

In a pointed jab at Washington over Snowden's revelations on data-gathering by NSA, Alavarez said Ecuador offered $23 million per year to the United States to finance human rights training.

He said the money would be aimed at helping "avoid violations of privacy, torture and other actions that are denigrating to humanity."

Ouch. It's pretty sad when random countries in South America can legitimately call you out on your human rights violations.

[saxitoxin]

But what do I do if I agree with a candidate on a number of issues, but disagree with them on the NSA's abilities? Where do I rank that in my priority list?

If you want treats and goodie bags more than you want to live in a post-feudal state based on Reason and the Rule of Law that doesn't make you bad, it just puts you at a different stage of intellectual maturity.

Letters to your representative are likely to be read.

When the law is ignored, what power does a lawmaker have?

[Metsfanmax]

Letters to your representative are likely to be read.

When the law is ignored, what power does a lawmaker have?

When the law is ignored, what power does a citizen have?

[saxitoxin]

Letters to your representative are likely to be read.

When the law is ignored, what power does a lawmaker have?

When the law is ignored, what power does a citizen have?

[Dukasaur]

Letters to your representative are likely to be read.

When the law is ignored, what power does a lawmaker have?

When the law is ignored, what power does a citizen have?

Ultimately, even the Czars had to yield when enough people took a shit on their front lawn. They shot a few hundred, then they shot a few thousand, then they sent a few million to die on the German front, but in the end they had to hand over the keys to the Winter Palace. (And yes, I know that things went from bad to worse after that, but that's another issue entirely.)

Governments need the consent of the governed. If one or two of us withholds our consent, it's true that nothing whatsoever will result. Even a few hundred or a few thousand. But when millions start to withhold their consent, the government falls.

Can any of us predict whether our personal rebellions will lead to mass movements or simply be another silly episode of a stubborn old man being carted off to the asylum? No, we can't. All we can do is try.