A Victory for Edward Snowden?

[Zelig]

What does that even mean? He was "told in confidence"?

He was told something with the expectation and understand that he would not share it.

Snowden is a traitor, police informants are traitors, American revolutionaries were traitors, etc.

 

[MobBoss]

What does that even mean? He was "told in confidence"?

Afaik he was at some point an employee of several companies, and at another point an employee of the state. He had a number of laws to follow. He found that the fundamental law of the country was being violated and decided to call attention to that. He used the evidence he had access to in order to prove it.

Had he not done so he'd be a traitor for going along with violating the constitution of his country, wouldn't he? The problem here is simply that a lot of people did just that. Still do. And it's far too politically dangerous to recognize it, too many people would have to fall. Better to just cast the one as a traitor and pretend that the organizations he denounced were not engaged in violating the actual law of the land. It's a mess, isn't it?

No. Again, simply because a law was possibly being broken by the collection of metadata, that in of itself is not treason. Legally, treason has a fairly specific specification. In fact, historically it is very rarely charged because it is so very specific. There is even a decent chance that if Snowden were captured and then charged, it could be with a charge lesser than treason because the charge of treason is so specific.

For example, Bradley Manning, who did indeed engage in traitorous actions against the USA was charged on 22 various charges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_charges_in_United_States_v._Manning), but none of which were actually listed specifically as 'treason'.

 

[Zelig]

No. Again, simply because a law was possibly being broken by the collection of metadata, that in of itself is not treason. Legally, treason has a fairly specific specification. In fact, historically it is very rarely charged because it is so very specific. There is even a decent chance that if Snowden were captured and then charged, it could be with a charge lesser than treason because the charge of treason is so specific.

For example, Bradley Manning, who did indeed engage in traitorous actions against the USA was charged on 22 various charges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_charges_in_United_States_v._Manning), but none of which were actually listed specifically as 'treason'.

"American treason".

 

[Berzerker]

Are you that obtuse to think that terrorists don't read/view major media?

If thats how you define giving aid and comfort then Cheney and Libby committed treason when they outed Valerie Plame. Hell, that would make all these clowns traitors for diverting us into a war with Iraq while our enemy was concentrated in Afghanistan and Pakistan. You never responded to Pangaea...

 

[MobBoss]

If thats how you define giving aid and comfort then Cheney and Libby committed treason when they outed Valerie Plame. Hell, that would make all these clowns traitors for diverting us into a war with Iraq while our enemy was concentrated in Afghanistan and Pakistan. You never responded to Pangaea...

If you have plans to bomb X, and then some dumbass lets it out to the media that you are going to bomb x, and your enemy either (a) reinforces the hell out of it, greatly increasing the risk of the attack, or (b) escapes totally without a scratch, then how can it not be treason?

At that point all you are arguing is how the enemy got the plans, and obviously, it starts with the dumbass that let it out to the media. In Manning's case it was called "Knowingly giving intelligence to the enemy through indirect means".

As to Cheney and Libby, well, no real evidence ever came forward that they ever named Plame as an agent, and fwiw, Libby himself did get convicted on obstruction and perjury charges, but was never, ever charged for naming Plame as a CIA agent. And in fact, in follow up, the Obama administration sided with Cheney/Bush on the matter.

So your example isn't really all that good of one.

Except that not even the NSA or the US military has been able to prove that is the case. They drew a blank when pressed on it.

It's entirely debatable however and the references for that have been from supposedly classified documents not released. For example, the Washington Post reported that the CIA claimed that the program Snowden worked on was responsible for catching terrorists and even named a couple of specific examples of it doing so. Now those terrorists know of the program, and how we were attempting to find them. Do you not think that helps them in eluding our detection efforts? How can it not? And by making them harder to track down, it makes them more effective, which in turn increases risk to our citizens and soldiers alike.

Sure, the evidence would be purely circumstantial, but come on, DoD experts and admin members of both the Bush and Obama administration have said without a doubt that the information disclosure has hampered our ability to track and find our enemies. One even compared Snowden's act to a 'cyber Pearl Harbor'.

It's pretty naïve to think that this didn't help our enemies. Exactly how much it did is a much better question.

 

[Akka]

Again, this may be how YOU define a traitor, but that is not the legal (or even commonly accepted) definition of the term.

Okay, give me the precise definition of what is a traitor first then.

However, what Snowden did with his information was indeed treasonous. It fits the very definition of what treason is.

It was also reported to our enemies. Or are you so naïve as to think we don't have enemies?

He reported it to the highest authority (the people). How do you expect someone to denounce something to the people without it being widely available ?

If he had really wanted to stay true to that authority, he would have worked within the whistleblower system to affect that change. He chose not too.

You consistently ignore the fact that the system is run by the same people, or under the authority of the same people, who were being denounced. How ridiculous would it be to see them and ask them for protection ?

"Hello, I'm going to tell you that you're doing something bad. I will ask you to take action against yourself, and to protect me from yourself and the reprisals you could inflict upon me"

 

[Berzerker]

If you have plans to bomb X, and then some dumbass lets it out to the media that you are going to bomb x, and your enemy either (a) reinforces the hell out of it, greatly increasing the risk of the attack, or (b) escapes totally without a scratch, then how can it not be treason?

Is the media guilty of treason based on your analogy?

At that point all you are arguing is how the enemy got the plans, and obviously, it starts with the dumbass that let it out to the media. In Manning's case it was called "Knowingly giving intelligence to the enemy through indirect means".

Snowden told the media we'd be bombing some place or Manning?

As to Cheney and Libby, well, no real evidence ever came forward that they ever named Plame as an agent

Richard Armitage outed her to Robert Novak and Karl Rove confirmed her identity. Cheney told Libby and Libby told Matt Cooper and Judith Miller.

And in fact, in follow up, the Obama administration sided with Cheney/Bush on the matter.

Obama said Cheney and Libby were innocent?

It's entirely debatable however and the references for that have been from supposedly classified documents not released.

You already convicted Snowden but now its entirely debatable?

 

[Zelig]

DoD experts and admin members of both the Bush and Obama administration have said without a doubt that the information disclosure has hampered our ability to track and find our enemies. One even compared Snowden's act to a 'cyber Pearl Harbor'.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...iles-journalism-worst-also-filled-falsehoods/

"By definition, authoritarians reflexively believe official claims – no matter how dubious or obviously self-serving, even when made while hiding behind anonymity – because that’s how their submission functions. Journalists who practice this sort of primitive reporting – I uncritically print what government officials tell me, and give them anonymity so they have no accountability for any it – do so out of a similar authoritarianism, or uber-nationalism, or laziness, or careerism. Whatever the motives, the results are the same: government officials know they can propagandize the public at any time because subservient journalists will give them anonymity to do so and will uncritically disseminate and accept their claims."

 

[Formaldehyde]

Laura Poitras made an extremely riveting Oscar-winning documentary about Edward Snowden last year called Citizenfour. It debuted a few months ago on HBO.

Citizenfour received widespread critical acclaim. It has a 98% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 124 critics, with an average score of 8.3/10. Metacritic gave the film an 88 out of 100 based on a normalized rating of 38 reviews.[16]

Ronnie Scheib of Variety wrote "No amount of familiarity with whistleblower Edward Snowden and his shocking revelations of the U.S. government's wholesale spying on its own citizens can prepare one for the impact of Laura Poitras's extraordinary documentary Citizenfour... far from reconstructing or analyzing a fait accompli, the film tersely records the deed in real time, as Poitras and fellow journalist Glenn Greenwald meet Snowden over an eight-day period in a Hong Kong hotel room to plot how and when they will unleash the bombshell that shook the world. Adapting the cold language of data encryption to recount a dramatic saga of abuse of power and justified paranoia, Poitras brilliantly demonstrates that information is a weapon that cuts both ways."[17]

Spencer Ackerman writes in The Guardian: "Citizenfour must have been a maddening documentary to film. Its subject is pervasive global surveillance, an enveloping digital act that spreads without visibility, so its scenes unfold in courtrooms, hearing chambers and hotels. Yet the virtuosity of Laura Poitras, its director and architect, makes its 114 minutes crackle with the nervous energy of revelation."[18]

Time magazine rated the film #8 out of its top 10 movies of 2014[19] and called the film "This Halloween's Scariest Chiller".[20] Vanity Fair rated it #4 out of its top 10[21] and Grantland rated it #3 of its top 10.[22] Writing for the Chicago Tribune, former Defense Department intelligence analyst Alex Lyda penned a negative review, calling Snowden "more narcissist than patriot".[23] David Edelstein reviewed the film mostly favorably, and jocularly advised viewers "don't buy your ticket online or with a credit card".[24]

Here is the trailer.


Link to video.

There is a complete video of the film on Youtube. But the audio track has been intentionally modified up in pitch, apparently to get around the copyright lows:


Link to video.

I encourage everybody to watch this documentary. It is a must-see.

There was also an excellent interview with Edward on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.


Link to video.

Edward Snowden is an extremely likable and highly intelligent person. I think history is going to be extremely kind to him in the same way that Daniel Ellsberg is now seen. I also think he is an American hero in the greatest sense of the word. It took a great deal of courage to do what he did for the betterment of all of humanity.