Replies

>> If Snowden is not committing treason, then is there even such a thing as treason?<<

Agreed. What we’re witnessing is a phenomenon of “one man’s traitor is another man’s whistleblower.”

This time the whistle was blown on the Left so to the Right, he’s a whistleblower, not a traitor. Of course, that’s nonsense. Bolton is just being consistent, as he usually is.

That said, someone certainly needed to blow the whistle on this entire matter, even if he had to commit treason to do it.

And that, of course, is the real issue: Did he really have to commit treason to accomplish what he did? If so, changes are needed so that insiders can safely step forward when our laws are being perverted beyond recognition, as I think has happened here.

There is no question that Snowden’s acts were treasonous. The real question is whether his treasonous acts were justified given his range of options for accomplishing what I think most of us would agree needed to be accomplished.

We’re getting too damn close to an Orwellian world, only today’s world has a hell of a lot more tools available than Orwell ever dreamed possible. All he imagined were cameras; we’ve got digital fingerprints all over the place, plus the cameras.

Are we certain that the government hasn’t figured out a way to turn on the smartphone in your pocket and listen to your private conversations, or better yet, film you as it sits on the table nearby? Probably, but how about tomorrow, or next year? And is there any doubt that our government would use that technology if it were developed, and (given the evidence) use it indiscriminately?

We need clearer laws, and people need to go to jail when they violate those laws. Enough with bureaucrats being allowed to “interpret” 2000 page laws that no one understands.

I don’t think Snowden is completely immune to a charge of treason, but there’s certainly a distinction between the kind of thing he’s done vs. a Bradley Manning or The Rosenbergs (or, for that matter, John Kerry, the Clintons and Obama).

You could hang the vague “aid and comfort” charge onto him, I suppose, but Snowden hasn’t taken up arms against the U.S., and he hasn’t revealed specific classified material. The secret he’s revealed is essentially that there are no secrets. And I believe that his defense would be pretty solid in stating that violations of the Constitution cannot be protected by “classified” status or an oath of secrecy imposed by the violators.