Is Snowden a traitor? ... and confession of age group

For me, this is pretty cut and dry... but I fart dust.

I'm under 30 and torn on this. Two days ago I would have said yes but that interview last night was great.

Oh. Looks like you figured it out. Did you get someone under 30 to help you?

So, with an extremely small sample size, both demos say no, but at least some 30+ers are saying yes. Interesting.

What if I'm exactly 30????? I don't know what to do.

I thought it was multiple choice. I want a do over.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:What if I'm exactly 30????? I don't know what to do.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!

Rocinante wrote:

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!

So you're saying I'm over 30 then? Damn it.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
So you're saying I'm over 30 then? Damn it.

And apparently a liar.

I take back my birthday wishes.

Rocinante wrote:

And apparently a liar.  

I take back my birthday wishes.

Fair enough.

Molon Labe wrote:I'm under 30 and torn on this. Two days ago I would have said yes but that interview last night was great.

same when oj put the glove on...that's proof right there he didn't commit the murders.

WCS wrote:

same when oj put the glove on...that's proof right there he didn't commit the murders.

You make no sense.

I find the early results interesting...

Older crowd / 9-7 for traitor
Younger crowd / 1-5 for not a traitor

I would have thought the younger crowd to be more all-American, "the gub't knows best".  But, the poll is showing the opposite.

The over 30 and saying he is a traitor are probably republican.

If you think he's a traitor, you're part of the problem.

Ned Stark wrote:If you think he's a traitor, you're part of the problem.

Yep. Over 30 and I view the real traitors as those that were spying on us in the first place.

I'd be far more worried about what your ISP, cell provider, email account, google, and all the other data miners know about you.

Privacy disappeared long ago. Let's not kid ourselves.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:What if I'm exactly 30????? I don't know what to do.

Masturbate.

Furiously.

Gomer wrote:I'd be far more worried about what your ISP, cell provider, email account, google, and all the other data miners know about you.

Privacy disappeared long ago. Let's not kid ourselves.

I guess when Verizon and Google start buying up hollow-points, I'll pay them more mind. (sorry to go there)

SawGreen wrote:I find the early results interesting...

Older crowd / 9-7 for traitor
Younger crowd / 1-5 for not a traitor

I would have thought the younger crowd to be more all-American, "the gub't knows best".  But, the poll is showing the opposite.

You must be incredibly out of touch with reality.

RubberbandMan wrote:

You must be incredibly out of touch with reality.

I could see how he could get that impression from certain circles of MSU students. There are a lot of country republican kids at State.

BtothejizA wrote:


I could see how he could get that impression from certain circles of MSU students. There are a lot of country republican kids at State.

Yeah, but outnumbered by young liberals.

Three_Putt_Par wrote:

Yeah, but outnumbered by young liberals.

True.

Just because you don't like the NSA spying doesn't change any facts regarding what Snowden did. You may believe Snowden did the wrong thing for the right reason, but he's still a traitor.

The same people who believe that OJ Simpson was innocent will believe Snowden is only guilty of being a patriot...despite the fact that he is on the run, and he ran to China, and then Russia (hardly nations friendly to the USA, despite naïve claims to the contrary in the most recent presidential debates). You can educate them on definitions of words like traitor, treason and patriot, but they'll just shrug and say "But it sucks that the feds are spying on us..." Yeah, no shit it sucks, but it doesn't change the definitions of words or the threshold of criminality.

Snowden has become one of the rare topics that gets bipartisan agreement: He's a traitor.

You can be glad that Snowden did what he did, but he remains a traitor. And if you think he should be granted an exemption from prosecution, you're inviting each individual to just pick and choose which laws need to be followed, and which are optional. Should border patrol agents get to decide that a "nice" person is allowed to illegally enter the USA? How about a TSA agent granting themselves authority to allow unauthorized weapons on an airplane?

FWIW, it remains unknown what damage Snowden did to the USA. It is certain however that the feds have not stopped their spying on Americans, it's allies, or it's enemies. Snowden didn't change anything other than perhaps the opinions of people who thought the government allows them a modicum of privacy.

Rodeo Burger wrote:Just because you don't like the NSA spying doesn't change any facts regarding what Snowden did.  You may believe Snowden did the wrong thing for the right reason, but he's still a traitor.

lol, so what?

Rodeo Burger wrote:
The same people who believe that OJ Simpson was innocent will believe Snowden is only guilty of being a patriot...despite the fact that he is on the run, and he ran to China, and then Russia (hardly nations friendly to the USA, despite naïve claims to the contrary in the most recent presidential debates).  You can educate them on definitions of words like traitor, treason and patriot, but they'll just shrug and say "But it sucks that the feds are spying on us..."  Yeah, no shit it sucks, but it doesn't change the definitions of words or the threshold of criminality.

Snowden has become one of the rare topics that gets bipartisan agreement:  He's a traitor.

Again, so what?

Being a "criminal" is an arbitrary distinction. And especially within this context, quite a shaky one.

Rodeo Burger wrote:

You can be glad that Snowden did what he did, but he remains a traitor.  And if you think he should be granted an exemption from prosecution, you're inviting each individual to just pick and choose which laws need to be followed, and which are optional.  Should border patrol agents get to decide that a "nice" person is allowed to illegally enter the USA?  How about a TSA agent granting themselves authority to allow unauthorized weapons on an airplane?

FWIW, it remains unknown what damage Snowden did to the USA.  It is certain however that the feds have not stopped their spying on Americans, it's allies, or it's enemies.  Snowden didn't change anything other than perhaps the opinions of people who thought the government allows them a modicum of privacy.

What better way to punish someone for revealing immoral and unethical practices? Use your monopoly of violence against them and enslave them.... because that's what we do with "criminals".

What do you mean "lol, so what?"

Half the respondents to the poll said he isn't a traitor, when he obviously is. It isn't up for serious debate.

If people who voted no want to explain why they think this particular act of treason is OK, I'd be glad to hear it. I'd also like a list of other acts of treason that are acceptable as well, just for shits and giggles.

Rodeo Burger wrote:What do you mean "lol, so what?"

Half the respondents to the poll said he isn't a traitor, when he obviously is.  It isn't up for serious debate.

If people who voted no want to explain why they think this particular act of treason is OK, I'd be glad to hear it.  I'd also like a list of other acts of treason that are acceptable as well, just for shits and giggles.

It was a bit confusing, what I meant was..... so what?

Considering the level of unethical and immoral shit this country commits and has committed on a daily basis throughout the entirety of its history... what Snowden allegedly did is pretty pedestrian.

I'll try to explain it a different way, though, just in case it's still unclear... so what? I'm certainly not going to fall on the side of the soulless politicians that make up our government.

I just mean the outrage seems a bit misplaced. Maybe outrage is the wrong word to describe it but close to what I mean.

Rodeo Burger wrote:What do you mean "lol, so what?"

Half the respondents to the poll said he isn't a traitor, when he obviously is.  It isn't up for serious debate.

If people who voted no want to explain why they think this particular act of treason is OK, I'd be glad to hear it.  I'd also like a list of other acts of treason that are acceptable as well, just for shits and giggles.

How, exactly, is this an act of treason? He exposed a government blatantly depriving its citizens of basic civil liberties, essentially violating its own constitution.

xsanguine wrote:

It was a bit confusing, what I meant was..... so what?

Considering the level of unethical and immoral shit this country commits and has committed on a daily basis throughout the entirety of its history... what Snowden allegedly did is pretty pedestrian.

I'll try to explain it a different way, though, just in case it's still unclear... so what? I'm certainly not going to fall on the side of the soulless politicians that make up our government.

I just mean the outrage seems a bit misplaced. Maybe outrage is the wrong word to describe it but close to what I mean.

   So then, literally every crime ever committed in the US would garner a "so what?" from you?

If not, why not? The acts of any one person are "pretty pedestrian" when you compare them to the shit this country has committed throughout it's history.

Jeffrey Dahmer? So what, Viet Nam was worse. Serial rapist? So what, we escalated the conflict in Kosovo to get Monica Lewinsky off the front page, igniting a civil war and genocide.

  

dubie7006 wrote:

How, exactly, is this an act of treason? He exposed a government blatantly depriving its citizens of basic civil liberties, essentially violating its own constitution.

Because we're not suppose to question our God, government. They have our best interests at heart and work tirelessly for us.

Those that don't worship our God are heathens and must have their reputations tarnished.

Rodeo Burger wrote:

   So then, literally every crime ever committed in the US would garner a "so what?" from you?

If not, why not?  The acts of any one person are "pretty pedestrian" when you compare them to the shit this country has committed throughout it's history.

Jeffrey Dahmer?  So what, Viet Nam was worse.  Serial rapist?  So what, we escalated the conflict in Kosovo to get Monica Lewinsky off the front page, igniting a civil war and genocide.

  

Let us count the straw men....

dubie7006 wrote:

How, exactly, is this an act of treason? He exposed a government blatantly depriving its citizens of basic civil liberties, essentially violating its own constitution.

Treason is debatable I'll grant you that. The legal definition would require that he did what he did to aid our enemies. He claims he did it merely to shine a light on the domestic spying to help us all out. He'd likely not be convicted of treason in court.

The traitor tag fits like a glove though. A bank robber might claim he stole the money to give to charity, but he still is guilty of robbery.

Rodeo Burger wrote:

Treason is debatable I'll grant you that.  The legal definition would require that he did what he did to aid our enemies.  He claims he did it merely to shine a light on the domestic spying to help us all out.  He'd likely not be convicted of treason in court.

The traitor tag fits like a glove though.  A bank robber might claim he stole the money to give to charity, but he still is guilty of robbery.  

Don't you have to commit treason to be a traitor?   

Rodeo Burger wrote:

Treason is debatable I'll grant you that.  The legal definition would require that he did what he did to aid our enemies.  He claims he did it merely to shine a light on the domestic spying to help us all out.  He'd likely not be convicted of treason in court.

Our enemies? Who are these enemies you speak of and what did they do to you?

dubie7006 wrote:

Don't you have to commit treason to be a traitor?   

I'm not interested in a semantic argument, but no. There's a reason Snowden is a fugitive, and there's a reason he's found safe harbor in Russia. He's welcome to come back here to clear his name, yet he chooses not to.

Rodeo Burger wrote:

I'm not interested in a semantic argument, but no.  

Well I am. Please tell me what I'm missing, so I can better understand:

trea·son
ˈtrēzən/Submit
noun
the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

trai·tor
ˈtrātər/Submit
noun
a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc.

Rodeo Burger wrote:

I'm not interested in a semantic argument, but no.  There's a reason Snowden is a fugitive, and there's a reason he's found safe harbor in Russia.  He's welcome to come back here to clear his name, yet he chooses not to.

lol

dubie7006 wrote:

Well I am.  Please tell me what I'm missing, so I can better understand:

trea·son
ˈtrēzən/Submit
noun
the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

trai·tor
ˈtrātər/Submit
noun
a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc.

Treason: Benedict Arnold
Traitor: Doug Karsh

Rodeo Burger wrote:

Treason:  Benedict Arnold
Traitor: Doug Karsh

      

I quit.

This thread seems to be an exercise in futility, but I will play.

First off the central question seems to be - what is a country?  Is a country primarily its government or its populace?  It is possible to betray one to aid the other.

Like the answer to most questions it depends on the context.  Certainly those that we consider this country's founding fathers and count among its greatest patriots were also traitors who committed treasonous acts against the British Crown.