Skip to main content

View Diary: TRAITOR Snowden's 4 Lap Tops Drained by China (214 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Treason is Defined in the Constitution (17+ / 0-)

    Last declared war 70 years ago. Last peer enemy empire collapsed a generation ago. Worldwide active terror population would not fill one NFL stadium.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 08:08:11 PM PDT

    •  "Worldwide active terror population would not... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MartyM, samddobermann

      fill one NFL stadium."

      Care to offer some evidence for this assertion?

    •  Maybe not the legal definition, but in layman's (4+ / 0-)

      colloquial terms, one might argue that the term "traitor" is applicable to Snowden.  

      Take Aldrich Ames, for example.  If you read the Wikipedia page on Aldrich Ames, it says he was convicted of "spying for the Soviet Union and Russia", then the very next sentence says his act of "betrayal resulted in the deaths of a number of CIA assets".  So legally Ames was just a spy for USSR.  But in layman's terms he's a traitor.  And does anyone REALLY have a problem with applying the term "traitor" to Ames?  Of course not (I hope), since Ames clearly was a traitor when it comes down to it, even if his act didn't meet the legal definition of treason.

      Now Snowden is a bit more complicated, in that there's not a "Cold War" with China (or Russia) like there was with the USSR in Ames' day, and Ames was directly working for USSR as part of his espionage activities in premeditated fashion, while Snowden didn't meet with the Chinese (and Russians) until after he left the US.  We don't know that he premeditatedly planned to hand over his data to the Chinese (and possibly Russians) at the time he decided to collect data to leak it.  So the layman's term of traitor is more strongly applied to Ames than Snowden, IMO.

      IMO, how strongly the term traitor applies to Snowden would depend on the circumstances of how the Chinese got the data.  For example, if information comes out that Snowden traded the data to the Chinese for an exit out of Hong Kong or something like that, then the term traitor becomes strongly applicable.  If the Chinese forced him to hand over his laptops at gunpoint, or drained his laptop of all data while he was out of the room (I couldn't tell from the NYT article), then the term traitor is less applicable (if at all).

      But sure, maybe Snowden won't be legally charged with treason since his acts don't appear to meet the legal definition (if Ames' action didn't meet the definition, then Snowden's certainly doesn't, IMO).  But the DOJ may now up the charge from merely releasing classified info to unauthorized persons to outright spying (both offenses are listed as part of what is known as the Espionage Act, along with other offenses).
      Not that it matters, he's never coming back to this country to face the charges anyway.

      •  "in layman's colloquial terms" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Neuroptimalian

        doesn't the term "traitor" apply to the NSA and all its junior grade fascist defenders?  What could be lower and more treasonous than defiling the Constitution and spying on Americans?  Apart from the lily-livered chicken scat junior grade un-American fascist authoritarians who defend said spying while waving the flag, that is?

        America rots from within . . . is it "treason" that Snowden disclosed the rot?  "Treason" to the fascists, maybe . . . but that's not treason against America . . .

        Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

        by Deward Hastings on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 01:06:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In other words (0+ / 0-)

          the idiots bandying about the word "traitor" have no idea what they're talking about and no credibility whatsoever.

          Good to know.

          You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

          by Johnny Q on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 02:12:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  pretty much . . . (0+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            Hidden by:
            MartyM

            "treason" is explicitly defined in Article III Section 3 of the US Constitution.

            Pretty much 99.9% of those bandying the term around in relation to Snowden are un-American to the core.  Closet fascists, now outed by their own words.

            Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

            by Deward Hastings on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 02:54:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Tell it to the Judge (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tony Situ
              The Rosenbergs were the only two American civilians to be executed for espionage-related activity during the Cold War.[30] In imposing the death penalty, [Judge] Kaufman noted that he held them responsible not only for espionage but also for the deaths of the Korean War:

              “    I consider your crime worse than murder... I believe your conduct in putting into the hands of the Russians the A-Bomb years before our best scientists predicted Russia would perfect the bomb has already caused, in my opinion, the Communist aggression in Korea, with the resultant casualties exceeding 50,000 and who knows but that millions more of innocent people may pay the price of your treason. Indeed, by your betrayal you undoubtedly have altered the course of history to the disadvantage of our country. No one can say that we do not live in a constant state of tension. We have evidence of your treachery all around us every day for the civilian defense activities throughout the nation are aimed at preparing us for an atom bomb attack.

              Link
    •  Off the cuff figures... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      on the cusp, RocketJSquirrel

      ...from Wikipedia, around 14,000 Al Qaeda fighters left.  From a 2010 article, Fareed Zakaria put the figure at 400 (!).  This is from a brief perusal of a quickie google search.  There are a lot of terrorist groups in the world, but very few of them want to do harm to the USA.  An even quicker quickie google seems to show that the number of people who want to blow up Russians far exceeds the number of people who want to blow us up.  And from events in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, there seem to be far more Sunnis interested in blowing up Shia than Sunnis wanting to blow us up.  All numbers are provisional, since I am not the NSA (or am I?).

      Goose is right.  The ones wanting to hurt us wouldn't fill a stadium.

      Tell me what to write. tellmewhattowrite.com 'To know what is right and to do it are two different things.' - Chushingura, a tale of The Forty-Seven Ronin

      by rbird on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 08:50:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a trusted... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        samddobermann

        source in my opinion, and the assertion was not limited to any one group or country, but as follows:

        Worldwide active terror population would not fill one NFL stadium
        In 2011, the Al-Qaeda inspired militant group Al-Shabaab alone in Somalia had 14,426 fighters in many parts of the country.

        http://www.sunatimes.com/...

        According to Israel, in 2007, the strength Hamas has at its command in the Gaza Strip was close to 20,000 armed men.

        http://www.mfa.gov.il/...

        The numbers would seem to add up fats if we went through each country.

        As such, the assertion seemed to me to be much too conservative and minimalist regarding the problem faced.

        •  ... in my opinion... (0+ / 0-)
          in my opinion
          in my opinion
          in my opinion
          in my opinion
          in my opinion
          in my opinion
          You said it, it cannot be unsaid!

          Hamas isn't at war with the USA.

          Al-Shabaab and its motley pirate crew aren't at war with the USA.

          What's the average capacity of an NFL stadium?  My guess, around 80,000.  So even with these enemies/non-enemies of the USA....Victory for me!

          I'm afraid, sir, that it's time...
          ...we used math!

          And this is the last you'll hear from me on this subject.  Depending on the definition, the subjective intent of Gooserock, and a bunch of unknown unknowns, we'll never know who's right or who's not....but I'm right in any case.

          Tell me what to write. tellmewhattowrite.com 'To know what is right and to do it are two different things.' - Chushingura, a tale of The Forty-Seven Ronin

          by rbird on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 11:19:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly, which was why I asked for a source. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            samddobermann

            Perhaps he defines a terrorist as a freedom fighter.

            And if you want to use Wikipedia, your choice. To me, it's useless, and you did not even include a link.

            And do you really believe what Zakaria said?

            Bottom line is that he did not say ANYTHING about either Al-Queda or the USA, but the number of terrorists worldwide. To me, this includes terrorists of all stripes.

    •  Pollard...Israel (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      samddobermann

      No war with them, but he went to prison.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site