

Edward Snowden's Father Gives Interview: My Son Is Not A Traitor - rpm4321
http://www.today.com/news/edward-snowdens-father-my-son-not-traitor-6C10480514

======
tropicalmug
This story is not relevant to the privacy issues at hand. This is distracting
from the conversation we should be having.

~~~
grandalf
I don't fully agree. The article mentions that Snowden has offered to come
back to the US if Holder agrees not to detain him before trial. Certainly a
very important piece of news.

~~~
adaml_623
I disagree with you. Snowden coming back to the US for trial is irrelevant to
questions about the actions of the NSA and the behaviour of your government.

~~~
ithkuil
Perhaps Snowden is afraid of what could happen to him before trial. The fact
that his concerns might be well motivated is certainly relevant to the actions
of NSA and the behaviour of your government.

------
sigzero
The Government does not want him for being treasonous. The Government wants
him for espionage.

~~~
Zikes
If espionage is acquiring information to give to the enemy, and Snowden is
wanted for giving information to the American people, does that mean that the
Government thinks that the American people are the enemy?

~~~
Kylekramer
I know this is a Ron Paul line, but the logic doesn't clearly follow. Snowden
isn't "wanted for giving information to the American people". He didn't only
release information to American citizens.

Of course, it is impossible to leak classified information publicly and not
leak it to the "enemy", but this particular platitude bugs me. There are many
reasons to be upset with the government right now, but the charges against
Snowden don't imply the government thinks citizens are the enemy.

~~~
Spooky23
The definition of "enemy" has moved beyond state affiliation. It's not "the
Russians are coming". We're worried about extremists of various ilks these
days. So a citizen can be an enemy in the current line of reasoning.

Let's be real here -- nobody who follows these issues was surprised by what
Snowden said or found it implausible. Our potential nation-state enemies, who
are not completely inept, or operate assuming that the NSA had the
capabilities described by Snowden. It's publically known that the US
compromised Soviet undersea cables almost 40 years ago -- I'm sure Chinese
Intelligence didn't assume that that capability still existed today. Anyone
who has any business or knows anything about doing business in China knows
about the Great Firewall and knows that a State entity has the ability to
broadly and deeply monitor network activity.

------
josephagoss
I think at this point in time we can assume the Government gets the right to
define what is a traitor and what is not a traitor.

Thus, if the Government says Snowden is a traitor then Snowdon is a traitor. I
don't think Snowden is a traitor but the Government gets the final say.

Different Governments might have different definitions of what would be a
traitor but any sufficiently powerful Government can turn anyone into a
traitor if they want to.

EDIT: I don't think this is right, but thats the way they work.

~~~
will_brown
Perhaps a little more complex...The legislature should get to define a traitor
(the criminal laws anyway); the legal authorities should get to arrest and
charge the suspect (then again under the Constitution police powers were
reserved for the State, but we say that Constitutional protection whittle away
years ago, and now people accept the Federal police powers without question);
finally the court should ensure due process and fair trial to every defendant.

However, like you elude, when the Executive creates a war on terror complete
with special powers to identify individuals and non-state organizations as
enemy combatants without any standards or review process, which in turn allows
the government to circumvent due process to the point of allowing targeting
kill lists and indefinite detentions without any due process or review there
is a problem. In fact there is a word for people in power who centralize power
and circumvent law and judicial review under the notion of necessity or
"nation security"...well anyway we can all be thankful for terms limits (so
long as terms limits are not circumvented under the notion of necessity...kind
of like Bloomberg in NY)

~~~
dragonwriter
> under the Constitution police powers were reserved for the State

No, they weren't. There is no such provision anywhere in the Constitution. The
states are sometimes described as being different than the federal government
under the federal Constitution because the former have _general_ police powers
while the latter has _limited_ powers, but the key distinction there is
"general" vs. "limited"; both have police powers.

~~~
will_brown
First, the Constitution gives Powers (to the Gov.) and Rights (to the People),
so you are not likely to find a "provision" expressly stating what the Federal
Gov. does NOT have the Power to do, however, the Constitution has an Amendment
on point:

10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."

You can look as hard as you want you will not find policing powers delegated
to the US government within the Constitution. Ergo police powers, that is the
power to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the
betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare are reserved to
the State.

Moreover, " nowhere in the federal Constitution is Congress given authority to
regulate local matters concerning the health, safety, and morality of state
residents. Known as police powers, such authority is reserved to the states
under the Tenth Amendment." (See: [http://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tenth+Amendmen...](http://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tenth+Amendment))

In fact your comment proves my point that people accept Federal police power
without question, to the point you make an legal argument supporting your
point of view (and that of the US Gov.) and provide no support, other than
stating "there is no such provision anywhere in the Constitution"

------
coin
Yet another mobile device hostile site

------
fatjokes
"My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist,
but he is _not_ a porn star!"

I know, I know: this isn't Reddit, but I couldn't resist.

