[gwnn]

As opposed to European benevolent intelligence agencies, I guess? Could we stick to avocados and bacon here please?

[Winstonm]

gwnn, on 2013-June-23, 14:32, said:

As opposed to European benevolent intelligence agencies, I guess? Could we stick to avocados and bacon here please?

Don't forget Finnish ketsup!

[Winstonm]

What does Edward Snowden have to do with Zambonis? And cats?

[y66]

He ain't here.

No cats, zambonis, bacon, avocados or curling rocks on that flight either.

[Winstonm]

y66, on 2013-June-24, 07:37, said:

He ain't here.

No cats, zambonis, bacon, avocados or curling rocks on that flight either.

Must be Southwest Airlines - they serve no Finnish ketchup, either, if you can imagine.

[onoway]

I'm curious..what exactly constitutes treason? I thought it had to do with actively trying to bring down a government usually by helping some outside country or agency to do so.

Informing the citizens about what a government is doing seems a bit of a stretch and would appear to mean now anything that embarrasses a government, which seems a bit extreme. I could see him being charged with something such as breach of trust as I'm fairly sure he likely signed some sort of nondisclosure agreement, but treason??

We live in a weird time...in Canada we have a political party whose whole reason for being - often stridently stated - is to break up the country, which would seem to be a treasonous sort of thing, but presently they run one of the provinces. However, if we had our own version of Snowden I'm fairly positive our government's reaction would be the same as the U.S.'s. It seems to me a huge and rather silly overreaction.

I hope all those reporters enjoyed the trip to Cuba.

[Winstonm]

For the record, I agree with JTFanclub that the NIST report explains as well as can ever be done the building collapses from the 9-11 terrorist attacks, and there was no conspiracy involved other than an al-Queda conspiracy to attack the U.S.

[Aberlour10]

onoway, on 2013-June-24, 10:30, said:

It seems to me a huge and rather silly overreaction.

Such overreactions are quite usual anywhere, when the hypocrites are being suddenly unmasked.


PS. No curling in Quito

[dwar0123]

onoway, on 2013-June-24, 10:30, said:

I'm curious..what exactly constitutes treason? I thought it had to do with actively trying to bring down a government usually by helping some outside country or agency to do so.

Informing the citizens about what a government is doing seems a bit of a stretch and would appear to mean now anything that embarrasses a government, which seems a bit extreme. I could see him being charged with something such as breach of trust as I'm fairly sure he likely signed some sort of nondisclosure agreement, but treason??

We live in a weird time...in Canada we have a political party whose whole reason for being - often stridently stated - is to break up the country, which would seem to be a treasonous sort of thing, but presently they run one of the provinces. However, if we had our own version of Snowden I'm fairly positive our government's reaction would be the same as the U.S.'s. It seems to me a huge and rather silly overreaction.

I hope all those reporters enjoyed the trip to Cuba.

I was wondering the same when the news hit, so I googled it and apparently breaching a trust can be considered treason. This would specifically include the intentional dissemination of top secret documents that you signed an oath to protect.

[Winstonm]

Of course, the government always makes the same claims when information is leaked - national security is at risk. Happened with Daniel Elsberg, too.

[blackshoe]

onoway, on 2013-June-24, 10:30, said:

I'm curious..what exactly constitutes treason? I thought it had to do with actively trying to bring down a government usually by helping some outside country or agency to do so.

Quote

US Constitution, Article III, Section 3: 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.

Quote

18 USC § 2381: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Quote

18 USC § 798: (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

IMO, and based solely on what I've seen in the news and my reading of these laws, Snowden is guilty of violation of 18 USC § 798 (a)(4). He is not guilty of treason. Of course, that's only my opinion, and IANAL.

[blackshoe]

dwar0123, on 2013-June-24, 11:37, said:

I was wondering the same when the news hit, so I googled it and apparently breaching a trust can be considered treason. This would specifically include the intentional dissemination of top secret documents that you signed an oath to protect.

Maybe. I think it depends on whether the circumstances fit the definition of treason in the Constitution. OTOH, it may depend on whether the government can twist things enough to make it look like treason.

[blackshoe]

I read recently that Ron Paul expressed the possibility that the US Government may attempt to kill Snowden. It wouldn't surprise me, but I think it would be a serious error. Whatever the legal niceties, he's entitled to a fair trial — and any law that says he's not is IMO unConstitutional — and if he dies under "mysterious circumstances" while he's running around trying to find asylum, or afterwards, a lot of people are going to be asking a lot of questions, and Obama's got enough problems already.

[dwar0123]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-24, 14:58, said:

I read recently that Ron Paul expressed the possibility that the US Government may attempt to kill Snowden. It wouldn't surprise me, but I think it would be a serious error. Whatever the legal niceties, he's entitled to a fair trial — and any law that says he's not is IMO unConstitutional — and if he dies under "mysterious circumstances" while he's running around trying to find asylum, or afterwards, a lot of people are going to be asking a lot of questions, and Obama's got enough problems already.

Ron Paul is a nitwit and so are you for thinking this is an actual possibility. In what Universe would the US government try to kill Snowden AFTER the damage is already done. Before, maybe, but after? The only people who might try to kill him are crazed lunatics looking for ever lasting fame or someone who wants to frame the US Government and who thinks like you.
Thinking that
A. The US government has actual motive.
and
B. That it would be insanely stupid for the US government to do it.

Two ideas that are so mutually exclusive that it is a wonder your head doesn't explode for thinking them at the same time.

P.S. You are right about treason, it would be very hard to argue convincingly that he committed treason under the constitution.

[1eyedjack]

If it is of any interest to you then you have probably already come across it, but in case not, one of Steve Gibson's recent "Security Now" podcasts (#408) looks into the Prism fiasco in some depth, with some interesting links to supporting material available here:

https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm

[blackshoe]

dwar0123, on 2013-June-24, 15:10, said:

Ron Paul is a nitwit and so are you for thinking this is an actual possibility. In what Universe would the US government try to kill Snowden AFTER the damage is already done. Before, maybe, but after? The only people who might try to kill him are crazed lunatics looking for ever lasting fame or someone who wants to frame the US Government and who thinks like you.

Yeah, sure, let's call people names. That'll help a lot. And I would like to point out that all I did was report what Ron Paul said. I did not say I agreed with him.

I'll let others decide who's the nitwit here.

[kenberg]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-24, 14:58, said:

I read recently that Ron Paul expressed the possibility that the US Government may attempt to kill Snowden. It wouldn't surprise me, but I think it would be a serious error. Whatever the legal niceties, he's entitled to a fair trial — and any law that says he's not is IMO unConstitutional — and if he dies under "mysterious circumstances" while he's running around trying to find asylum, or afterwards, a lot of people are going to be asking a lot of questions, and Obama's got enough problems already.

A guy in a bar gets to express this possibility. If a U.S. Senator chooses to express this possibility he should be asked to back up his statement. Of course he could acknowledge that, like the barfly, he was just sayin.'.

Have another drink Rand. Let's move on to discuss how Lyndon Johnson pulled off the Kennedy assassination .And you do know that Roosevelt had advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor, but let it happen to bring the U.S. into the war. Right? Did I tell you about the conspiracy to... Hey, Rand, that blonde over there has been giving you the eye.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2013-June-24, 20:29, said:

A guy in a bar gets to express this possibility. If a U.S. Senator chooses to express this possibility he should be asked to back up his statement. Of course he could acknowledge that, like the barfly, he was just sayin.'.

Have another drink Rand. Let's move on to discuss how Lyndon Johnson pulled off the Kennedy assassination .And you do know that Roosevelt had advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor, but let it happen to bring the U.S. into the war. Right? Did I tell you about the conspiracy to... Hey, Rand, that blonde over there has been giving you the eye.

My respect for you Ken, and for your posts here, is seriously diminished.

You confuse Rand Paul, currently a Senator from Kentucky, and his father Ron, who was a US Representative from Texas, but is now retired.

I don't know - haven't been able to find any evidence - that Ron actually did say what was claimed. All I do know is that I read the claim that he did. IAC, it's not who said it that interested me, but the statement itself.

It is certainly true that the US government has the capability to do it. It is also true that the US government has assassinated people before. But this one would, as I said, be a big mistake. I don't think Obama is that stupid, but some of his advisers may be.

[kenberg]

Sorry,Ron Paul has sufficiently faded from the scene that i just read Rand where it says Ron. Mea culpa. The son should not be held responsible for his father.

[onoway]

In any case, they'd have to find him first. This is beginning to look like that game "Where's Waldo?"

Putin came up with a pithy comment when talking about the US request to have Snowden turned over to them, on the basis of Snowden being a criminal fugitive:
"Ask yourself a question: should people like that be extradited so that they put them in prison or not?" he said. "In any case, I would prefer not to deal with such issues. It's like shearing a piglet: a lot of squealing and little wool."

It was interesting to learn that Wikileaks is still active in spite of Assange being beached in the embassy in London.

Don't think they do much curling in Moscow either, Aberlour