
House Intelligence Committee Letter to Obama on Snowden [pdf] - tcoppi
http://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hpsci_members_letter_to_potus_re_snowden-15_sep_16.pdf
======
suprgeek
Now this is an exercise in doublespeak:

1) Rather than avail himself of the many lawful avenues to express legal,
moral, or ethical qualms with U.S. intelligence activities, Mr. Snowden stole
1.5 million classified documents from National Security Agency networks.

WRONG - He has stated many times that he did approach all manner of
"Oversight" people who basically told him to shut up. What happened to Tomas
Drake and the others who tired the insider approach - nothing ever came of it.

2)...vast majority ofthe documents had nothing to do with programs impacting
individual privacy interests

How do you verify this? you can't

3)..In the course of doing so, he infiringed on the privacy of thousands of
his friends, colleagues, and fellow citizens

Meanwhile the NSA was illegally infringing the privacy of almost 310 million
americans

4) The material Mr. Snowden stole pertains to lawful intelligence activities
authorized and overseen by all three branches of govemment.

\- the activities were NOT lawful (as in legally defensible when challenged in
a court), they were not overseen by anyone and some of them were unrelated to
intelligence.

What a bunch of gutless hypocrites.

~~~
NullCharacter
> WRONG - He has stated many times that he did approach all manner of
> "Oversight" people who basically told him to shut up. What happened to Tomas
> Drake and the others who tired the insider approach - nothing ever came of
> it.

Then why not bring proof? 1.5 million documents and he can't bring the emails
he sent? No, we saw the emails (that is to say, one email:
[https://news.vice.com/article/nsa-finds-new-snowden-
emails-b...](https://news.vice.com/article/nsa-finds-new-snowden-emails-but-
theyre-not-about-his-concerns-with-surveillance)) that were sent to OGC, and
nothing in them indicated he was raising any concerns.

> How do you verify this? you can't

He took 1.5 million documents and we've seen what, maybe 100-200 documents and
slides over the course of three years? What's the other 1,499,800 million
classified documents about?

> Meanwhile the NSA was illegally infringing the privacy of almost 310 million
> americans

Fine, if he had only taken documents pertaining to his qualms then there would
have been a much greater chance of him being labeled a whistleblower or at
least be met with some leniency even if he didn't in fact follow the proper
channels.

> the activities were NOT lawful (as in legally defensible when challenged in
> a court), they were not overseen by anyone and some of them were unrelated
> to intelligence.

1,499,800 documents that likely have absolutely zero to do with what he was
supposed to be blowing the whistle on.

~~~
colordrops
Have these documents been released? Do you know under what extenuating
circumstances he was under when he collected these documents? What's your
point?

~~~
NullCharacter
My point is how do you pardon someone for whistleblowing when literally 99.99%
of what they took from a classified space has nothing to do with what they
were supposedly blowing the whistle on?

~~~
colordrops
If he was under duress he probably didn't have time to filter through the
documents. Even if he had a bit of time, it's difficult to know what would be
relevant as events unfolded after the release.

In any case, it's already been established that he broke the law in order to
expose a much greater law breaking, but many if not most people believe it to
be OK because we also believe that it was impossible to expose the information
in any other way. Considering all the miss-steps most whistleblowers made in
their activities, Snowden was remarkably careful and clean. He made some
calculations on what he needed to collect to successfully expose the crimes he
witnessed, and the accuracy of those calculations is up for debate. I could
easily come up with several reasons why he might have thought that he needed
all those documents while under duress. For example, there may have been
evidence of other crimes, and there would be no way he could sift through the
documents while still working. Also, he recognized that he needed to leak
slowly in order to keep the story afloat, or else he would get buried under
propaganda and forgotten, as has happened to other whistleblowers that
released all at once.

~~~
NullCharacter
> If he was under duress he probably didn't have time to filter through the
> documents. Even if he had a bit of time, it's difficult to know what would
> be relevant as events unfolded after the release.

The dude planned this for years, he said it himself. He had plenty of time to
simply take evidence of what he was going to blow the whistle on. I don't
understand your argument.

> impossible to expose the information in any other way

Except for the many oversight channels that exists which there has yet to be
any evidence he used.

> For example, there may have been evidence of other crimes, and there would
> be no way he could sift through the documents while still working.

If I understand your argument correctly, it's: "it's possible _something_ here
is illegal so let's just take all of it." I shouldn't have to explain why that
doesn't jive.

> Also, he recognized that he needed to leak slowly in order to keep the story
> afloat, or else he would get buried under propaganda and forgotten, as has
> happened to other whistleblowers that released all at once.

None of this addresses the fact that it seems he did a recursive pull of
supersecretnsadomain.gov and deuced out to China under the pretenses of
whistleblowing.

~~~
colordrops
> Except for the many oversight channels that exists which there has yet to be
> any evidence he used.

That is absolutely not true. There is plenty of evidence that he tried to
report to several superiors. Read the accounts yourself.

> None of this addresses the fact that it seems he did a recursive pull of
> supersecretnsadomain.gov and deuced out to China under the pretenses of
> whistleblowing.

If he was looking to dump documents on china and russia for fun and profit,
why exactly would he go through the rigamarole of working with the guardian,
making an ethical issue out of it, spending tons of time meeting with various
celebrities and dignitaries, doing talks, writing essays, and crafting a
remarkably coherent and complex false narrative. That sounds about as far
fetched as most things that get labeled conspiracy theories. He'd have to be
one serious double agent to pull all that off.

------
nsaslideface
This is a committee that includes Peter King we're talking about.

[https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/](https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/) responds:

"BREAKING: Government officials dislike those who expose their illegal
surveillance and trigger global debate about their behavior."

"If House Intel Committee had done its job of exercising oversight over NSA,
there'd have been no Snowden. He did their job for them. If you don't want
leaks, don't build a secret, illegal system of mass surveillance and then hide
it and lie about it to the public."

~~~
tptacek
It's the House Intelligence committee. Peter King didn't start it, nor does he
chair it. Every minority member of the committee appears to have signed it as
well.

------
kafkaesq
_Snowden insists he has not shared the 1.5 million documents with anyone, but
the Russians officials publically concede that he "did share intelligence"
with their government._

"Russian officials" here refers to a single MP, Franz Klintsevich. If you look
at his widely-quoted words carefully, which offer no specifics, it sounds more
like he's simply speculating that that's what Snowden did:

 _" Let's be frank," he says. "Snowden did share intelligence. This is what
security services do," adds Klintsevich. "If there's a possibility to get
information, they will get it."_

EDIT: Apparently, Klintsevich actually said "to be frank, _I think_ that he
shared..." in the original interview ("я думаю что поделился что поделился"),
but for whatever reason, NPR dropped the "я думаю" part in its translation.

~~~
slg
Greenwald has stated that Snowden has leaked certain things for self-
preservation. [1] Once that precedent is established, it isn't much of a leap
to imagine that he would be willing to do that again if pressured by the
Russian government.

[1] -
[https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/352213748917874688](https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/352213748917874688)

~~~
mintplant
Then wouldn't it have been better for the intelligence community if he hadn't
had to flee the US for self-preservation? If we had better whistle-blower
protections Russia would never have entered the picture.

~~~
slg
Yes, which is exactly why the report harps on the fact that he did leave and
got stuck flying between the US's two biggest political rivals. The NSA didn't
put Snowden in that position, he put himself in it. Staying in the US would
have certainly involved personal sacrifices from Snowden and he may not trust
he would receive a fair trial. However that is why whistle blowers are
celebrated. They but themselves at risk for the greater good. And you can't
just say the ends justify the means for Snowden potentially giving up
information to the Russians because that is the exact logic people inside the
NSA use for this type of mass surveillance in the first place. Two core
attributes of civil disobedience are about establishing a moral or ethical
high ground and then facing the repercussions that come from your actions.
Snowden appears to have failed on both of those accounts.

~~~
kafkaesq
_The NSA didn 't put Snowden in that position, he put himself in it._

Actually it was the Obama administration that put him in that position, by
revoking his passport.

 _Two core attributes of civil disobedience are about establishing a moral or
ethical high ground and then facing the repercussions that come from your
actions._

This is just empty posturing. For one thing, Snowden already is accepting
significant repercussions for his actions (in ways that I don't think I need
to detail for you; but which most likely are far greater than repercussions
you've faced, or likely ever will face for taking a principled stand).

For another, taking responsibility for your actions doesn't mean you are
required to throw yourself under a bus and accept whatever unjust
persecutions† the system is waiting to throw at you. And when that system
becomes sufficiently corrupt and unaccountable, not only do you have a right,
you have _moral duty_ to escape and defy that system -- and continue your
struggle -- to whatever extent possible.

†BTW, by "unjust persecution" I don't mean a lengthy jail sentence; I mean the
very high probability that he would be tortured, the way Chelsea Manning is
being tortured right now, as we speak -- as her way of accepting the very same
"repercussions" that you, from the safety of your keyboard, are asking Snowden
to accept:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitary_confinement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitary_confinement)

~~~
slg
First off, you can't blame Obama when Snowden was in China before any of his
leaks became public. He could have been anywhere in the world at the time of
the leaks, but he chose Hong Kong.

Secondly, I like how you are the one accusing me of posturing and then say
that Snowden has received harsher repercussions than anything I have
experienced, talk about posturing.

I didn't make the same decisions as Snowden. I know that most of us wouldn't
make the same decisions in his situation. That is why the system exists how it
does as countless people allow it to happen. Like I said, that is why we
champion whistle blowers. They do something uncommon and difficult. But that
choice also involves facing their accusers. Going to jail is often part of it
for anyone practicing civil disobedience. It was part of the missions for
everyone from MLK Jr to Gandhi. Yes, it is a lot to ask of Snowden to compare
him to people like that, but once again no one put Snowden in that position
but Snowden.

~~~
kafkaesq
Hmm - your point seems to come down to: "He put chose to put himself in that
position. Therefore, he should accept whatever wildly unjust persecution the
system will surely hit him with the moment they get their hands on him. And
therewith, further promote the chilling deterrent effect against anyone who
might contemplate taking a similar, principled stand."

You can hold that position if you want. But I just don't buy it.

------
ramblenode
> Moreover, the material Mr. Snowden stole pertains to lawful intelligence
> activities authorized and overseen by all three branches of government.

Exactly.

To those who question why Snowden didn't work through the system, here's your
answer--straight from the House Intelligence Committee.

~~~
btilly
How was it overseen by Congress when they were lied to, repeatedly, about the
existence of the programs they supposedly oversaw?

How was it overseen by courts who had never been permitted to see evidence of
existence?

As far as I can tell, it was unilateral executive action started by the guys
who brought us waterboarding, and continued by an executive who mostly
continued the same foreign policy. And it is a tool whose largest beneficiary
is the same executive branch that authorized it.

~~~
DSMan195276
It isn't an all or nothing. Snowden leaked information on a lot of different
programs - some of them presumably weren't known to Congress, some were. It is
known that Snowden both leaked information on illegal activities and legal
actives of the NSA. Leaking information about legal activities generally isn't
protected by whistle-blowing laws or otherwise.

~~~
btilly
The presumption that they weren't known is based on direct testimony to
Congress from the CIA saying that they had no such program in place.

See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper#False_testimo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper#False_testimony_to_Congress_on_NSA_surveillance_programs)
for verification.

As for the rights of whistleblowers, the Obama administration has used the
Espionage Act to go after whistleblowers more than all other previous
administrations combined. Would YOU trust this administration if you thought
they were doing wrong?

~~~
DSMan195276
I wasn't saying anything against that - read my comment again ("It isn't an
all or nothing. Snowden leaked information on lots of different programs
..."). What I'm saying is that Snowden leaked a lot more then just the fact
that the NSA gathers data on US citizens. Some of that data was on legitimate
NSA activities, which is why claiming he is purely a whistle-blower is a bit
hard to do: Leaking the data on illegal NSA activities is a legitimate
argument for a whistle-blower defense, leaking data on legal NSA activities is
not.

All I'm saying is that it is not a black and white issue. The reality is that
even if you accept that he should have immunity for blowing the whistle on
illegal NSA activities he revealed (As I do), the other things he did are
still serious and it is hard to argue he should be pardoned in full for it. He
could have only leaked information on the NSA illegal activities, but he
didn't.

------
atdt
Snowden's leaks were damaging to the members of this committee, because they
showed the American public that the American intelligence apparatus is not
subject to any meaningful oversight. So it is entirely predictable that the
members of this committee would try to protect themselves by shifting focus to
Snowden, away from their criminality.

Three years have elapsed since Snowden's revelations, and the intelligence
community has not been able to show how the leaks have compromised national
security. This is why the signatories of this letter have to avail themselves
to gauzy arguments about Snowden's character and insinuations of collusion
with Russia or China.

------
knowaveragejoe
To play devil's advocate, is there some truth to this?

> _Mr. Snowden 's claim that he stole this information and disclosed it to
> protect Americans, privacy and civil liberties is undercut by his actions.
> Rather than avail himself of the many lawful avenues to express legal,
> moral, or ethical qualms with U.S. intelligence activities, Mr. Snowden
> stole 1.5 million classified documents from National Security Agency
> networks. The vast majority of the documents had nothing to do with programs
> impacting individual privacy interests, but instead pertain to military,
> defense, and intelligence programs of great interest to America's enemies._

~~~
vinchuco
My only concern is that he chose to flee. Staying would have been a very
different statement.

~~~
rsanders
I understand that as a feeling, but I can't logically justify it. What reason
did he have to trust in the system to treat him fairly? The rightness of the
programs he exposed, and our right to know about them, don't depend on whether
he decided to martyr himself.

------
leepowers
Check out this Intelligence Squared debate between Daniel Ellsberg (pentagon
papers) vs. a former CIA director - it provides a deeper insight into the
perspective behind this letter, and the vacuous arguments made by the anti-
Snowden cohort: [http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/snowden-was-
jus...](http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/snowden-was-justified)

The letter reminds me of how the DEA is consistently hyperbolic regarding the
public health dangers of marijuana. To concede that weed is essentially
harmless and medically useful would invalidate much of the drug war the DEA
has waged for the past 40 years.

Similarly - to acknowledge Snowden in any positive light would invalidate the
spying regime instituted by the U.S. government. And force the to acknowledge
that their powerful spy tools require equally powerful oversight.

The lesson the NSA, the House committee, and others should take from Snowden
is not that he's a villain. Rather, that one way or the other substantial
oversight is going to occur, even if it requires the largest leak in history.
Create truly transparent and accountable systems and there will be no more
Snowdens. Throw the book at him, become more insular and secretive, and the
problem will only get worse.

~~~
tptacek
Why would the House Intelligence committee be opposed to oversight of the NSA?
That's their job.

~~~
AngrySkillzz
Because admitting that Snowden was a whistleblower or a patriot would imply
that they had not been doing their jobs as overseers. It would also
potentially limit the power of the intelligence apparatus, which would in turn
limit the power of these congressmen as some of their clout comes from being
on a committee overseeing a constellation of powerful agencies. Their
incentives are completely misaligned.

------
mindslight
This tired trope:

> _Rather than avail himself [Snowden] of the many lawful avenues to express
> legal, moral, or ethical qualms with U.S. intelligence activities ..._

Yes, Snowden obviously should have chosen to sit in USG's cage instead of
having meaningfully exposed their criminal conspiracy!

I guess the struggle of being on the wrong side of history is that you have to
double-down on efforts to keep the temporary condition going. These skinjobs
know that when their reign is over, it's over for good.

FWIW I think this idea that Obama is all of a sudden going to pardon Snowden
is laughable. But the outcome of this situation will be a good indicator of
whether Obama was actually a decent person trapped by politics, or yet another
empty salesperson for the status quo.

~~~
chevas
Did you just call them Cylons?

~~~
mindslight
The original reference is to Replicants, but the concept is general. They look
human, but only function mechanically.

(Yes I'm aware this is unfair to actual artificial intelligence, which will
likely be complex enough to have feelings. But for now that's just in movies,
and hopefully by the time we actually have that kind of AI the term will no
longer be needed as _no_ individual will be pushed into acting as a robot)

------
leesalminen
> Mr. Snowden is not a patriot. He is not a whistleblower. He is a criminal.

Quite a statement! It's obviously not black and white. Everyone is entitled to
their opinion, but I think the conversation needs to be inclusive, frank and
factual. And this statement from our representatives shows a major problem.
They don't want conversation, they want sound bites.

As an aside, I saw the movie last night and highly recommend it to anyone
unsure or not aware of what happened. It seems to be accurate enough to
portray the essence of his experiences and decision making process.

~~~
samstave
Pardon me (no pun intended) - which movie??

~~~
valine
Snowden
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3774114/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3774114/)

------
soufron
Well pardons are not granted to innocent people. He committed a crime yes. But
wasn't it for the greater good?

~~~
nabla9
This is the main issue.

Treason is a political crime. Snowden committed a crime to reveal much bigger
crime and danger to constitution and American people. He didn't benefit from
it personally.

Legal system or constitution is not end-all. Laws just approximate what is
considered morally correct action and their interpretations often follow
little behind the changes. Big positive changes in society often start with
breaking the law. Snowden may be legally traitor now but in the deeper sense
he did not betray his country.

~~~
tptacek
Snowden is not, and cannot be, charged with treason for his actions in leaking
those documents.

~~~
nabla9
I used treason as colloquialism to describe two felony charges under the
Espionage Act.

The intent of the Eespionage Act was to protect U.S against traitors inside
US.

>I am sorry to say that the gravest threats against our national peace and
safety have been uttered within our own borders. There are citizens of the
United States, I blush to admit, born under other flags but welcomed under our
generous naturalization laws to the full freedom and opportunity of America,
who have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our
national life;

[http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29556](http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29556)

------
jknoepfler
I believe that Snowden's actions were technically criminal, even perhaps
technically treasonous. I also believe that he was a patriotic whistleblower,
and that his actions are pardonable. The letter seeks to oppose these two
ideas, but they are not logically contradictory. The law is not always morally
correct, and a presidential pardon is a way to correct this in extraordinary
circumstances.

I do believe that Snowden should have been willing to be incarcerated for what
he did. However, I believe he did his (my) country an exceptional service, and
he should be exonerated on that basis.

~~~
atdt
> "I've volunteered to go to prison with the government many times," Snowden
> said in an interview with the BBC that aired Monday. "What I won't do is I
> won't serve as a deterrent to people trying to do the right thing in
> difficult situations."

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2015/10/06...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2015/10/06/edward-snowden-says-he-would-go-to-jail-to-come-back-to-
the-u-s/)

------
jjcm
In case anyone is wondering, here are the signatories on this:
[http://intelligence.house.gov/about/hpsci-majority-
members.h...](http://intelligence.house.gov/about/hpsci-majority-members.htm)

Devin Nunes, Chairman 22nd District of California

Jeff Miller 1st District of Florida

Mike Conaway 11th District of Texas

Peter King 2nd District of New York

Frank LoBiondo 2nd District of New Jersey

Lynn Westmoreland 3rd District of Georgia

Tom Rooney 17th District of Florida

Joe Heck 3rd District of Nevada

Mike Pompeo 4th District of Kansas

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 27th District of Florida

Michael Turner 10th District of Ohio

Brad Wenstrup 2nd District of Ohio

Chris Stewart 2nd District of Utah

~~~
tptacek
There are 23 signatures, and it's easy to find several of the minority's
members among them. It looks to me like every member of House Intelligence
signed.

------
grabcocque
There was never, ever, the remotest chance in hell this was going to happen.
Obama has nothing to gain from this, and has never said or done anything to
give the slightest impression he had any sympathy for Snowden.

~~~
CoryG89
This is precisely the reason presidents wait until the end of both terms
before making any pardons. It's possible (however unlikely) that Obama, deep
down, doesn't actually condemn him as much as he has let on publicly.
Regardless of how he personally feels, until now, there are appearances that
had to be kept up. So while now he still has nothing to gain by pardoning him,
there is now much less to lose than there had been previously.

------
tn13
As an Indian immigrant who does not have voting rights in USA nor very keen
follower of American politics it appears to me that the biggest danger to
American freedom is the leading presidential candidate who has received
several billions of dollars from corrupt foreign powers for dubious reasons
and might become Commander-In-Chief of USA and also appoint judges who are
expected to pass important judgements about what freedoms Americans can have.

Threat posed by Snowden is not even on the same plane as the threat posed by
such potentially compromised political leader.

It totally baffles me that this is not THE biggest issue in American politics.
Imagine Uber is appointing a CEO who is getting $$$ for Lyft!

------
PartTimeZombie
My view is that he has failed. The media where I live don't report anything at
all about Snowden anymore, he might as well not exist. But then the media
where I live are supine lickspittles who spend their time regurgitating
Government media releases and celebrity news.

------
revelation
It's hilarious, these are the people supposed to do the oversight. And they're
calling a whistleblower a criminal who triggered actual oversight and new
laws.

Sure, the new laws are bullshit, but surely you can't do this play right here
without losing face.

------
squozzer
Whatever your opinion on Snowden, his actions pre- and post-exposure, let's at
least agree on the following:

1) Snowden would probably not have gotten a trial, he would probably have gone
to Gitmo, forever. That's how post-9/11 USA rolls.

2) Intelligence services everywhere operate outside the law wherever and
whenever possible. That's why they exist. And they do not respect the
legislature or the courts, except where it serves theie purposes.

3) Internal mechanisms such as IG don't work as efficiently as people would
have us believe. Whistleblowers are considered, by and large, as "rats." And
those whose job it is to maintain accountability are frequently shunned --
think of a police department's internal affairs.

4) Lawful does not mean moral, righteous, or even in the best interest of
one's country. Before launching into a Joe Friday "if you don't like the law,
change it" speech, ask yourself this -- when was the last time a cop or any
other government minion ever took a public stand against a law they thought
was wrong? Ever wonder why?

------
pboutros
Those signatures are illegible.

Not that he ever really disappeared, but it's definitely interesting to see
the resurgence of Snowden in the zeitgeist now that Pres. Obama's term is
coming to a close. A big part of it is undoubtedly people knowing that pardons
uptick in the November - January time period for obvious reasons, but I wonder
how much of it is worries that the next administration will not be so
amenable.

~~~
samstave
Have either Clinton or Trump publicly/officially stated their opinion on
Snowden?

~~~
Miner49er
Clinton said, “In addition—in addition, he stole very important information
that has unfortunately fallen into a lot of the wrong hands. So I don’t think
he should be brought home without facing the music.” in a debate. Not sure
about Trump recently, but in 2013 he was very against Snowden and referenced
execution as a punishment for him several times.

~~~
CoryG89
What a presidential candidate says about pardons during their campaign should
be taken with a huge grain of salt. The reason they wait until the end of both
of their terms is so that the decision does not affect their support from
voters or any potential bi-partisan support.

------
x3n0ph3n3
Maybe the House Intelligence Committee should look in the mirror to find the
treasonous criminals.

------
tn13
Anyone who is refusing to see that the whole Snowden issue is not black and
white in my opinion does not deserve serious attention.

Snowden has done an important public service there is no doubt about it. But
without looking at all the information he has leaked we can not say for
certain he might have erred or put lives of Americans at risk. That is still a
crime.

Of course if Hillary can present "recklessness" as defense I think Snowden
should be able to do the same. He was a bit reckless in his zeal for
protecting rights of Americans.

------
saneshark
So this is probably just semantics, but can someone be "pardoned" when they
have not yet been tried and found guilty of a crime? Until Snowden is tried
and found guilty, he is innocent. What is there to exonerate at present?

~~~
mikeyouse
Yep. Most famously, Richard Nixon was pardoned before being convicted of
anything.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon)

------
squozzer
Not sure I'm going to get behind a committee whose membership includes a
terrorist sympathizer (Peter King.)

------
mturmon
Seems to be a response to the following op-ed from today's _NYT_ \--

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/opinion/pardon-edward-
snow...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/opinion/pardon-edward-
snowden.html?ref=opinion&_r=0)

------
samstave
@marcoperaza: Define treason?

~~~
flubert
"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."

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii)

~~~
samstave
uh... thats not what I meant.

Define how what Snowden did was treason, definitively.

~~~
xanderstrike
He is a hero, but he gave confidential government information to foreign
powers. Objectively speaking, he betrayed the NSA and the US government.
That's treason

Debating whether or not what Snowden did was treason is, I think, folly. You
can't. He's a traitor to the NSA and the US government.

The question in my mind is whether or not his act of treachery had a net
positive effect on the citizens of the US and the world. I think human beings
have a right to know they're being spied on, en masse, without any reasonable
suspicion, so that they can do something about it. For me, Snowden is a hero
for what he's done, and for the sacrifices he's made in an effort to make the
world a freer place (or at least get the ball rolling).

Remember that you don't pardon the innocent. Even those calling for his pardon
know that he's guilty. Their argument is just that what he did was worth
breaking the law.

~~~
samstave
This is a fantastic response and perspective. Thanks

