Is Snowden REALLY a traitor?

Snowden is an interesting case, I don't nessecarily condone or condemn him, but several members of this forum (and by several I mean A person who vigorously supports their country who happens to be in the 31st state admitted to the union, not intending to name anyone specifically here) have called Snowden a "traitor"
now Snowden has not been charged or convicted of treason, but I'll be generous and say If probable cause exists to charge snowden with treason we'll call him a traitor.

does PC exist? The US constitution contains only one criminal charge, treason. treason is defined in Article 3 section 3 of the US constitution.

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.

Click to expand...

merriam webster defines war as "1
a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict " Snowden has therefore not levied war against the states.

In addition Snowden has not given aid and comfort to our "enemies". No state of war or armed hostility exists between us or Hong Kong, us or the PRC, us or Russia. US citizens may freely travel to these countries, no embargo exists between us or any of these countries, we routinely trade with these countries, and their citizens may freely travel and emigrate here with no special restrictions. Therefore we are not "enemies" with Hong Kong, the PRC, or Russia in any true sense of the word.

Snowden has confessed to leaking information, but to the media, not in open court.

finally there is the witness requirement, which brings up some interesting questions, did two witnesses have to see him copying the information? or see him leaking it? the discussion is theoretical since he hasn't met the first element of the crime.


Therefore, Snowden cannot be considered a traitor since he does not meet the elements of the crime of treason.

No.

Now they charging him with espionage? He was hired by a spy agency.........................:banghead:

Is Snowden a traitor?

Of course not.

As a libertarian recently wrote (paraphrase) the parasites are enraged that one of the hosts revealed their methods. That's the reason the word traitor is being heaved around by the parasites.

Its too obvious that Snowden is not a traitor. The species of traitor of which he is being accused historically gives info secretly to the enemy. Snowden gave it to the world, enemies having access being incidental. Third-graders could spot the distinction.

Separately, if this becomes the new definition of treason, then nobody can ever reveal to the public the Orwellian control methods used by government--there will almost always be a way to show the enemy could somehow benefit from the information.

The real lesson is how the parasites are twisting and abusing the law in their rage to protect themselves and their position. For example, Snowden's charges include theft of government property. Suuuure. A thumb-drive? Some papers? Worth what? $20?

NO!

Thanks for including the constitutional definition. I don't believe Snowden is a traitor.

I will point out, though, that Lincoln did commit treason by levying war against the states.

Snowden violated his agreements with the government as an employee by releasing documents showing how a government agency routinely violates the constitutional rights of citizens. This behavior by the NSA and other agencies has been condoned through unconstitutional laws passed by Congress and enforced by the President.

Obviously, Snowden is a traitor who should get the death penalty!

Hi Folks

Good topic. I would say he is simply a ' Whistle blower" that stole Government property.

If they throw enough garbage against the wall, some will probably stick.

TIA

CCJ

It's weird because there's such a large disconnect between the people and federal government now. I don't think that when the constitution was written they had such a disconnect in mind. I don't believe he's committed treason against the people of the United States... But if you view the federal government as a separate entity rather than a representative body and the law specifies treason against them rather than the people, then you could probably stretch it and say that he aided an enemy, as it's pretty obvious that the federal government, or at least a significant number of components thereof, consider the people of the US, or at least certain groups thereof, enemies.

KBCraig said:

Thanks for including the constitutional definition. I don't believe Snowden is a traitor.

I will point out, though, that Lincoln did commit treason by levying war against the states.

Click to expand...

A little side-conversation.

When I first heard the bolded idea a few years ago, I thought, "Wow! That's right."

Then I thought about it s'more over time.

The southern states were seceding and forming their own federal government (confederation and federation were synonymous; probably still are).

Thus, he couldn't be waging war against the states, because they had removed themselves from the union.

Thus, he had to call it a rebellion. No other choice. He couldn't call it a revolution, because they weren't trying to overthrow the government in Washingon. He couldn't regard them as legitimately gone from the union, because that would make him an illegitimate foreign invader. And, he couldn't regard them as members of the union in good standing because that would mean treason on his part.

So, I don't think we can say Lincoln was a traitor for making war on the southern states. We can legitimately call him all sorts of tyrant and war criminal, but we can't call him a traitor under the constitutional definition.

The sick part of his attitude was to call duly formed state governments rebellious. When in history has a duly formed government been rebellious? Citizens and subjects rise up and rebel, not governments.

Add in that he destroyed the legitimacy of his own government. Remember the Declaration of Independence? Remember those phrases about a long train of abuses...absolute despotism...it is their right, their duty to throw off...establish new guards... The Declaration of Independence contains the legitimacy for the break from England. All the justifications are in there. So, if the Declaration of Independence is wrong or lying, then every state government since then, and their creature the fedgov, are illegitimate. But, if the Declaration is right, then Lincoln's refusal to let the south leave is illegitimate. Keep in mind the south was leaving peacefully. They didn't start shooting until Lincoln engineered provocation by resupplying Fort Sumter. Its not like they rose up and started shooting concurrent with secession, or seceded after the shooting started ala Lexington and Concord.

Tyrant, war monster, rights violator, racist--we can legitimately call him a lot of things. Just not traitor.

Why didn't Snowden release the information about the NSA programs secretly ?

Ca Patriot said:

Why didn't Snowden release the information about the NSA programs secretly ?

Click to expand...

<snicker>

Because by identifying himself, he established his credibility and the accuracy of the information.

I guess I should forgive you for asking a dumb question. I was forgetting you have no idea what credibility is, or why its important.

I am baffled, how is keeping civil rights abuses secret going to bring any change. The A holes in DC have been keeping it secret for years.:uhoh:

WalkingWolf said:

I am baffled, how is keeping civil rights abuses secret going to bring any change. The A holes in DC have been keeping it secret for years.:uhoh:

Click to expand...

No. You're not the one who's baffled. Apparently someone's super-dooper self-patriotism is making his clutch slip.

<snicker>

KBCraig said:

Thanks for including the constitutional definition. I don't believe Snowden is a traitor.

I will point out, though, that Lincoln did commit treason by levying war against the states.

Click to expand...

Citizen beat me too it. Although we could reason he was a traitor in the sense he took an oath to the constitution and then broke many of the restriction that bound him to it.

tomrkba said:

Snowden violated his agreements with the government as an employee by releasing documents showing how a government agency routinely violates the constitutional rights of citizens. This behavior by the NSA and other agencies has been condoned through unconstitutional laws passed by Congress and enforced by the President.

Obviously, Snowden is a traitor who should get the death penalty!

Click to expand...

I hope this is Sarcasm.

Snowden worked for the government and saw it was violating the law that restricts it namely the constitution, he had a duty to the constitution as a government employee to break whatever lame ass agreement the government had him sign.

Nightmare said:

"The Apple co-founder tells Lloyd Grove why he supports the NSA leaker, how the agency hasn’t ‘done one thing valuable for us’ in regard to Prism—and why the Internet wasn’t supposed to be this way."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-a-hero-because-this-came-from-his-heart.html

Click to expand...

even al gore, the inventor of the internet, agrees ....

Snowden is a whistle-blower. The gov't supports whistle-blowers , just not when they actually whistle-blow. And that blows. Go figure.

Ca Patriot said:

Why didn't Snowden release the information about the NSA programs secretly ?

Click to expand...

Uh.....then we would not know he released the information because it would have remained a secret.

If Snowden is smart then he will cite to Whistleblower Act/Law. If he would have called the government 1-800 number he would have been on the up & up.

He's no more a traitor than Manning or Asange for the same reasons.

IMO Snowden should be given immunity to testify before congress to the civil rights abuses by the NSA.

WalkingWolf said:

I am baffled, how is keeping civil rights abuses secret going to bring any change. The A holes in DC have been keeping it secret for years.:uhoh:

Click to expand...

I agree.

Don't do anything in secret you are not willing to do out in the open.

beebobby said:

He's no more a traitor than Manning or Asange for the same reasons.

Click to expand...

No, the reason Assange can't be a traitor is completely different: he's not an American citizen.