Slashdot Mirror
Snowden's Big Truth: We Are All Less Free
chicksdaddy writes "In the days since stories based on classified information leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden hit the headlines, a string of reports and editorials claim that he had his facts wrong, accuse him of treason – or both. Others have accused journalists like Glen Greenwald of The Guardian of rushing to print before they had all the facts. All of these criticisms could be valid. Technology firms may not have given intelligence agencies unfettered and unchecked access to their users' data. Edward Snowden may be, as the New York Times's David Brooks suggests, one of those 20-something-men leading a 'life unshaped by the mediating institutions of civil society.' All those critiques may be true without undermining the larger truth of Snowden's revelation: in an age of global, networked communications and interactions, we are all a lot less free than we thought we were. I say this because nobody has seriously challenged the basic truth of Snowden's leak: that many of the world's leading telecommunications and technology firms are regularly divulging information about their users' activities and communications to law enforcement and intelligence agencies based on warrantless requests and court reviews that are hidden from public scrutiny. It hasn't always been so."
Bruce Schneier has published an opinion piece saying that while Snowden did break the law, we need to investigate the government before any prosecution occurs. (Schneier's piece is one in a series on the subject.) Snowden himself said in an interview today that the U.S. government has been pursuing hacking operations against China for years.
The Constitution specifically restricts treason to two cases: 1) levying war against the United States; 2) "adhering" to its enemies, which is generally taken to require explicitly joining them or allying with them. For example, someone who joined the Wehrmacht during WW2 would be guilty of treason. So would someone who joins Al-Qaeda today. Or someone who raises a private army and invades a U.S. territory.
Treason cannot be charged just for any act that harms the United States or benefits its enemies, but only the specific acts of levying war against the country or joining someone else who is doing so. The Founding Fathers were worried about the more expansive meaning of "treason" that had been in use in Europe, to mean anyone who is taken to betray their country's interests, so defined it much more narrowly in the Constitution.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You mean the semi-autonomous capitalist city-state of Hong Kong? HK has been a thorn in the side of the CCP constantly - as a British Crown Colony before the handover and as a Special Administrative Region after.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
Violated the 4th Amendment (oh right, we're not qualified to understand our own rights.)
No, they'd do it and rely on secrecy, security clearances, high pay, intimidation and threats of legal retribution if it gets out and they find out who did it.
A government with a track record of violating the constitution and human rights of many people has, yet again, violated the constitution?
This does not follow. The government has many a time done illegal, underhanded things and tried to cover it up. I bet you'd do your damnedest to suggest that no one's rights have been violated by the Drug War, too.
How hard is it to use wikipedia to check basic facts before spouting off nonsense in a public forum?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Basic_Law
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
People often say treason when they mean sedition.
Meh, that was some considerable time ago - and we just ended up with a kind of mini monarchy for a few years before reverting to the status quo (albeit with a few more constitutional restraints on the crown). Being a regicide has never been much of a badge of honour.
More recently, we kept the monarchy in the 18th century while the French were murdering their aristocracy, we had a general strike that didn't become a communist revolution and we flat out ignored the blackshirts who were agitating in the late 30s / early 40s.
While it raises important issues, I'm struggling to find sympathy for him personally, as he has committed an extremely serious act of treason.
Although he did break the law, he did not commit treason.