Edward Snowden’s Long, Strange Journey to Hollywood
1–10 of 36 posts
Re: Edward Snowden’s Long, Strange Journey to Hollywood
#2I wish he was in Hollywood.
Re: Edward Snowden’s Long, Strange Journey to Hollywood
#3Watch the giddiness.
Re: Edward Snowden’s Long, Strange Journey to Hollywood
#4It's remarkable to me the certitude with which the NYT commenters state that Snowden is a traitor. The trust they place in the Intelligence Community that he compromised national security. This despite the proof that in at least one other case, that of Chelsea Manning, the IC lied. This was confirmed yesterday, with the release of Clinton's FBI report[1].
[1]: http://www.vocativ.com/356350/fbi-clinton-spent-long-hours-i...
Re: Edward Snowden’s Long, Strange Journey to Hollywood
#5It's remarkable to me the certitude with which the NYT commenters state that Snowden is a traitor. The trust they place in the Intelligence Community that he compromised national security. This despite the proof that in at least one other case, that of Chelsea Manning, the IC lied . This was confirmed yesterday, with the release of Clinton's FBI report[1]. [1]: http://www.vocativ.com/356350/fbi-clinton-spent-long-hou…
Traitor is obviously a loaded term, but Snowden surely broke the law and then fled the consequences. Maybe you think it's a bad law and he had good reasons, but it's not unreasonable for people to believe he should be in jail.
Re: Edward Snowden’s Long, Strange Journey to Hollywood
#6It's remarkable to me the certitude with which the NYT commenters state that Snowden is a traitor. The trust they place in the Intelligence Community that he compromised national security. This despite the proof that in at least one other case, that of Chelsea Manning, the IC lied . This was confirmed yesterday, with the release of Clinton's FBI report[1]. [1]: http://www.vocativ.com/356350/fbi-clinton-spent-long-hou…
Traitor is obviously a loaded term, but Snowden surely broke the law and then fled the consequences. Maybe you think it's a bad law and he had good reasons, but it's not unreasonable for people to believe he should be in jail.
Actually, traitor is not at all a loaded term. It has a precise meaning as found in Article III of the Constitution:
> 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.
Re: Edward Snowden’s Long, Strange Journey to Hollywood
#7It's remarkable to me the certitude with which the NYT commenters state that Snowden is a traitor. The trust they place in the Intelligence Community that he compromised national security. This despite the proof that in at least one other case, that of Chelsea Manning, the IC lied . This was confirmed yesterday, with the release of Clinton's FBI report[1]. [1]: http://www.vocativ.com/356350/fbi-clinton-spent-long-hou…
Traitor is obviously a loaded term, but Snowden surely broke the law and then fled the consequences. Maybe you think it's a bad law and he had good reasons, but it's not unreasonable for people to believe he should be in jail.
To add to that, he fled to a country whose legislative and political transgressions far outnumber the United States'. Which, imo, hurts his credibility as a serious seeker of justice.
Re: Edward Snowden’s Long, Strange Journey to Hollywood
#8For those interested, it looks like some theaters are selling advanced seating for September 15th and the following weekend. In my case AMC's Esplanade theater in Phoenix. It may be worth a quick google search to see what theaters in your area are showing in case you want to catch it that first weekend.
Re: Edward Snowden’s Long, Strange Journey to Hollywood
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Traitor is obviously a loaded term, but Snowden surely broke the law and then fled the consequences. Maybe you think it's a bad law and he had good reasons, but it's not unreasonable for people to believe he should be in jail.
Actually, traitor is not at all a loaded term. It has a precise meaning as found in Article III of the Constitution: > 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.
It's a loaded term because it's at best unclear if Snowden truly had the mens rea (legal experts go back and forth on this). Specifically, whether or not his intent was to aid the US' enemies.
Re: Edward Snowden’s Long, Strange Journey to Hollywood
#10It's remarkable to me the certitude with which the NYT commenters state that Snowden is a traitor. The trust they place in the Intelligence Community that he compromised national security. This despite the proof that in at least one other case, that of Chelsea Manning, the IC lied . This was confirmed yesterday, with the release of Clinton's FBI report[1]. [1]: http://www.vocativ.com/356350/fbi-clinton-spent-long-hou…
Traitor is obviously a loaded term, but Snowden surely broke the law and then fled the consequences. Maybe you think it's a bad law and he had good reasons, but it's not unreasonable for people to believe he should be in jail.
Not really. You can't be put in jail without due process, but the law in question explicitly (and arguably, unconstitutionally) suspends due process.
You could also argue that the accused "should" be the one to risk conviction and pursue appeals in an effort to get the law in question struck down by the courts, but one could just as easily argue that the government should recognize the obvious abuse and injustice in their reading of the 1918 Espionage Act, and use the power and discretion it has - precisely for cases like this - to extend their recognition of the public service he's done to the abandonment of charges against him.
It's hard to make the "yes but rule of law" argument in a case where the law in question is being twisted, stretched, and misapplied as egregiously as it is here. After all, rule of law is a two way street, and in a government ostensibly of, by, and for the people, an impasse like this should resolve itself in favor of the people.