Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 17 Jun '13 22:33
    Father of Edward Snowden urges son not to commit 'treason,' to return home

    . . . . "I hope, I pray and I ask that you will not release any secrets that could constitute treason," Snowden [father] told Fox News, in a message meant for his son's ears. He added: "I sense that you're under much stress [from] what I've read recently, and [ask] that you not succumb to that stress ... and make a bad decision."

    Further, Snowden said he would rather see his son return to the U.S. and face the U.S. justice system than stay abroad.

    "I would like to see Ed come home and face this. I shared that with the government when I spoke with them. I love my son," he told Fox News' Eric Bolling.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/17/exclusive-father-edward-snowden-urges-son-to-stop-leaking-come-home/
  2. 20 Jun '13 00:03
    Originally posted by moon1969
    [quote][b]Father of Edward Snowden urges son not to commit 'treason,' to return home

    . . . . "I hope, I pray and I ask that you will not release any secrets that could constitute treason," Snowden [father] told Fox News, in a message meant for his son's ears. He added: "I sense that you're under much stress [from] what I've read recently, and [ask] t ...[text shortened]... tics/2013/06/17/exclusive-father-edward-snowden-urges-son-to-stop-leaking-come-home/[/b]
    Before Americans begin throwing around words like 'treason', it could
    be helpful to be reminded on how the US Constitution defines 'treason'.

    "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War
    against them, or in adhering to their Enemies giving them Aid and Comfort."
    --US Constitution

    Edward Snowden has not 'levied War' against the United States.
    And I know of no evidence that Edward Snowden has 'adhered' to any
    enemy (an active combatant) of the United States. Even if he were to
    seek Chinese citizenship, for instance, China's not at war against the USA
    and continues to be one of the USA's most important economic partners.
    Calling Edward Snowden a 'traitor'--even if Dick Cheney did it--cannot
    make him into a 'traitor'.

    Edward Snowden has declared that he will not voluntarily return to the
    United States because he would expect unjust treatment under the US
    criminal justice system. Knowing what already has happened to Bradley
    Manning in the US miltary justice system, his fears seems understandable.

    Would any writer in this forum prefer to spend many years, perhaps the
    rest of one's life, in an American prison rather than living as a free man
    or woman in Hong Kong?
  3. 20 Jun '13 00:56
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Before Americans begin throwing around words like 'treason', it could
    be helpful to be reminded on how the US Constitution defines 'treason'.

    "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War
    against them, or in adhering to their Enemies giving them Aid and Comfort."
    --US Constitution

    Edward Snowden has not 'levied War' against ...[text shortened]... in an American prison rather than living as a free man
    or woman in Hong Kong?
    Send an email to his father. Do you know his father?
  4. 20 Jun '13 01:21 / 2 edits
    His old man probably still thinks his son can receive a fair trial.

    With no voices of approval or support from the powers that be, save looney Ron Paul who thinks that spying on its citizens is unconstitutional as well as being able to detain its citizens without due process, it would behoove Snowden never to return.

    Then again, maybe Ron would hide him in his basement.
  5. 20 Jun '13 01:44
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Before Americans begin throwing around words like 'treason', it could
    be helpful to be reminded on how the US Constitution defines 'treason'.

    "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War
    against them, or in adhering to their Enemies giving them Aid and Comfort."
    --US Constitution

    Edward Snowden has not 'levied War' against ...[text shortened]... in an American prison rather than living as a free man
    or woman in Hong Kong?
    On treason, Snowden essentially provided an enormous counterintelligence service to any and all enemies of the United States. So yes, that applies.

    PFC Manning is being held in pretrial confinement during the pretrial process, which is perfectly within the laws of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    But yes, it makes perfect sense that Snowden, a civilian, would fear the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    No doubt he would face charges so he chose to hide. I find it hilarious he would take umbrage of the Prism program and then hide in a country that, not only can spy with impunity, but censors their internet and takes political prisoners.
  6. 20 Jun '13 01:46
    Originally posted by whodey
    His old man probably still thinks his son can receive a fair trial.

    With no voices of approval or support from the powers that be, save looney Ron Paul who thinks that spying on its citizens is unconstitutional as well as being able to detain its citizens without due process, it would behoove Snowden never to return.

    Then again, maybe Ron would hide him in his basement.
    How is a federal court with a 12 man jury and a fancy, expensive lawyer (that he likely won't have to pay for) not a fair trial?
  7. 20 Jun '13 02:33
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    On treason, Snowden essentially provided an enormous counterintelligence service to any and all enemies of the United States.
    So yes, that applies.

    PFC Manning is being held in pretrial confinement during the pretrial process, which is perfectly within the laws of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    But yes, it makes perfect sense that ...[text shortened]... not only can spy with impunity, but censors their internet and takes political prisoners.
    "...it makes perfect sense that Snowden, a *civilian*, would fear the
    Uniform Code of Military Justice."
    --USArmyParatrooper

    You (USArmyParatrooper) have misunderstood what I wrote.
    I already knew that Edward Snowden's a civilian and hence would not be
    subject to the US military justice system. My point was that Bradley
    Manning has been detained under harsh conditions that many human rights
    groups (even some in the USA) regard as inhumane, and Edward Snowden
    seems to suspect that he could expect hardly any better treatment.

    Also, I don't know when or if Edward Snowden will request asylum from
    the People's Republic of China. If that occurs, however, then it seems just
    as reasonable for the Chinese authorities to expect Edward Snowden to
    share his knowledge in return as it has been for the US authorities to expect
    Chinese defectors to share their knowledge in return for asylum in the USA.

    Even if Edward Snowden never returns to the United States, I expect
    that he will have to keep looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life.
    And if he should meet an attractive woman with whom he could fall in love,
    he will have to wonder whether or not she might be part of a 'honey trap'.
  8. 20 Jun '13 03:34
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "...it makes perfect sense that Snowden, a *civilian*, would fear the
    Uniform Code of Military Justice."
    --USArmyParatrooper

    You (USArmyParatrooper) have misunderstood what I wrote.
    I already knew that Edward Snowden's a civilian and hence would not be
    subject to the US military justice system. My point was that Bradley
    Manning has been detained ...[text shortened]... fall in love,
    he will have to wonder whether or not she might be part of a 'honey trap'.
    "as it has been for the US authorities to expect
    Chinese defectors to share their knowledge in return for asylum in the USA."

    The United States has no such ultimatum. The US offers asylum from oppressive countries as part of our immigration laws. Just as the thousands (or millions?) of Cubans living in Florida and abroad.
  9. Standard member empovsun
    Adepto 'er perfectu
    20 Jun '13 05:17
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    On treason, Snowden essentially provided an enormous counterintelligence service to any and all enemies of the United States. So yes, that applies.
    all of the US's enemies already knew about this before this came out

    there are stories about what the NSA was doing back in 2006
    what snowden did was just put out the last piece of the puzzle
    out in the open for the rest of US civilians to know about it
    without a shadow of a doubt. why do you think we should trust
    these guys when they have been lying to us for so long?

    this discussion about snowden being a traitor is ridiculous!
    why are we focusing this man so much? sure, he took the selfish route
    but who cares? i want to know how many people are planned
    to be employed in that complex in Utah. these diversionary tactics are
    getting to be very tiresome. you guys need to see what's really important
    and it isn't some computer nerd that worked for the military that may or may not be a jerk

    isn't snowden the 3rd or 4th leaker on the NSA?
    hmmm, maybe the NSA needs a closer look instead of the whistleblowers that are trying to pay us all a service
  10. 20 Jun '13 05:17 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    How is a federal court with a 12 man jury and a fancy, expensive lawyer (that he likely won't have to pay for) not a fair trial?
    Showing that Snowden violated his trust with the NSA would not be difficult. However, putting the US government on trial for violations of the Constitution would be suicidal, especially for a government that passed the NDAA with impunity, a clear violation of the US constitution.

    I suppose if there was substantial decent among the powers that be he might have a chance, but seeing that this is not the case, he would get destroyed.
  11. 20 Jun '13 05:59
    Originally posted by empovsun
    all of the US's enemies already knew about this before this came out

    there are stories about what the NSA was doing back in 2006
    what snowden did was just put out the last piece of the puzzle
    out in the open for the rest of US civilians to know about it
    without a shadow of a doubt. why do you think we should trust
    these guys when they have been ly ...[text shortened]... SA needs a closer look instead of the whistleblowers that are trying to pay us all a service
    "all of the US's enemies already knew about this before this came out"

    And since you didn't qualify that assertion with a statement such as, "In my opinion probably", and instead made a statement of fact, I look forward to your citation proving all our enemies knew about Prism.

    BTW, providing any information about our intelligence gathering methods, SOPs, assets, staff, anything, is providing substantive counterintelligence material to the enemy.
  12. Standard member empovsun
    Adepto 'er perfectu
    20 Jun '13 06:21 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    "all of the US's enemies already knew about this before this came out"

    And since you didn't qualify that assertion with a statement such as, "In my opinion probably", and instead made a statement of fact, I look forward to your citation proving all our enemies knew about Prism.

    BTW, providing [i]any
    information about our intelligence gather ...[text shortened]... sets, staff, anything, is providing substantive counterintelligence material to the enemy.
    oh crud, my mistake then
    i will say that our enemies, are most likely, in my opinion
    watching all of our media news outlets, as that should be apart of their agenda

    my point being, the taliban, and whoever else we're at war with are paying enough attention to our actions including leaks. so to say that what snowden released was new content to help our enemies doesn't hold water with me

    as for any further information being released, so long as it is done in a fashion that doesn't actually aid our enemies, or put our soldiers at risk, and is used only to inform the american public, i see no misdeed
    why do you think what snowden released so detrimental for our own safety?
    this is like showing our enemies that we have systematically dominated the internet space realm. why do you think china has blocked theirs from the world to some extent? out of fear, and they did that some time ago

    the information released wasn't for our enemies, it was for all of us
  13. 21 Jun '13 00:20
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    "as it has been for the US authorities to expect
    Chinese defectors to share their knowledge in return for asylum in the USA."

    The United States has no such ultimatum. The US offers asylum from oppressive countries as part of our immigration laws. Just as the thousands (or millions?) of Cubans living in Florida and abroad.
    "The United States has no such ultimatum."
    --USArmyParatrooper

    I know of no evidence that the People's Republic of China has issued any
    ultimatum or threat against Edward Snowden. Indeed, he seems to be
    more afraid of ultimatums or threats coming from the United States.

    And China has granted asylum without any preconditions to many refugees.
    In the late 1930s-early 1940s, tens of thousands of European Jews who
    were fleeing Nazi persecution received asylum in China, usually after they
    had been rejected by their preferred Western choices, the USA, UK, etc.
    A few of these Jewish refugees decided to remain after 1949 and became
    citizens of the People's Republic of China.

    There have been terrible persecutions and mass expulsions of ethnic Chinese
    in southeast Asia. In Indonesia, Suharto (who was supported by the USA)
    seized power in a coup d'etat and consolidated his power through brutal
    purges, killing perhaps millions of people, singling out the Chinese minority
    as a useful scapegoat. In the late 1970s, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
    'ethnically cleansed' its Chinese minority. I have met someone who told me
    that his internal organs were permanently damaged after he, as a Chinese
    boy, was routinely beaten up by Vietnamese boys while the Vietnamese
    authorities did nothing to discourage such abuses of the Chinese minority.
    China has not found it so unusual to accept desperate refugees.
  14. 21 Jun '13 00:28
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper to whodey
    How is a federal court with a 12 man jury and a fancy, expensive lawyer (that he likely won't have to pay for) not a fair trial?
    "...a fancy, expensive lawyer (that he likely won't have to pay for)..."
    --USArmyParatrooper

    You (USArmyParatrooper) are mistaken if you believe that being a
    federal public defender is prestigious or highly paid work for a lawyer.
    The law students who seek careers as public defenders tend to be
    motivated by considerations other than fame or money.

    'A 12 man jury' is not necessarily impartial; all-white Southern juries were
    notorious for putting their racial prejudices ahead of considering evidence
    in cases involving black-and-white disputes. Could twelve open-minded
    jurors be found who would sincerely believe the defendant's presumption of
    innocence? Evidently, you (USArmyParatrooper) would not be one of them.
  15. 21 Jun '13 00:50
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    On treason, Snowden essentially provided an enormous counterintelligence service to any and all enemies of the United States. So yes, that applies.

    PFC Manning is being held in pretrial confinement during the pretrial process, which is perfectly within the laws of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    But yes, it makes perfect sense that Sn ...[text shortened]... not only can spy with impunity, but censors their internet and takes political prisoners.
    "On treason, Snowden essentially provided an enormous counterintelligence
    service to any and all enemies of the United States."
    --USArmyParatrooper

    On one hand, you (USArmyParatrooper) have dismissed Edward Snowden
    as a low-level federal employee who presumably could have known few
    secrets of importance. But, on the other hand, you claim to be certain
    that 'Snowden essentially provided an enormous counterintelligence service'.
    Which is it? It's hard to see how both positions could be equally true.

    "So, yes, that (a charge of treason) applies."
    --USArmyParatrooper

    You (USArmyParatrooper) are taking an extremely broad interpretation of
    the US Constitution as it applies to treason, which I believe is quite wrong.
    I believe that the US Constitution was written to define treason *narrowly*
    (in order to avoid the too broad charges of 'treason' that had been invoked
    by the British Crown), particularly as specific acts that actually aided the
    USA's *wartime enemies*. You seem to prefer extremely stretching the
    notion of 'treason' to include doing anything that *potentially* could help
    any enemy of the USA in a future conflict, not necessarily a declared war.
    I believe that's not what the US Constitution's writers had in mind.

    While it could be plausibly argued that Jane Fonda gave 'aid and comfort'
    to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, she could not be charged with treason
    because, for one thing, the United States never declared war upon the
    Socialist Republic of Vietnam--hence, it's not legally a *wartime enemy*.

    The Rosenbergs were accused of giving vital US atomic bomb secrets to
    the USSR, and they were convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage
    and executed. But even though their trial took place during the Korean
    War (when the USA and the USSR were at war by proxy) the Rosenbergs
    were *not charged with treason*. I would submit that this fact shows
    the very high bar that has been set for a charge of treason to be applied.
    How could Edward Snowden be charged with treason when the Rosenbergs,
    accused 'atomic bomb spies' during the Korean War, were not so charged?
    By the way, Julius Rosenberg was a Soviet spy; Ethel Rosenberg was not.
    Their role in giving 'atomic bomb secrets' was greatly exaggerated; the
    Soviets had received the most important information from Klaus Fuchs.