Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Edward Snowden’s Long, Strange Journey to Hollywood

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 36 posts

Re: Edward Snowden’s Long, Strange Journey to Hollywood

#11

Post by tanderson92 »

dvt wrote: post #7
eli wrote: post #5

Earlier 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.

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.

Suppose I believe in non-interventionism. Does my continued stay in the US and participation in its imperalism-based economy mean any efforts of mine for justice are suspect?

My point being that there are larger forces guiding our lives than our individual beliefs and actions.

Or put another way: as long as Snowden criticizes the transgressions as he sees them of Russia, isn't this what credibility requires?

Re: Edward Snowden’s Long, Strange Journey to Hollywood

#12

Post by dvt »

tanderson92 wrote: post #11
dvt wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Suppose I believe in non-interventionism. Does my continued stay in the US and participation in its imperalism-based economy mean any efforts of mine for justice are suspect? My point being that there are larger forces guiding our lives than our individual beliefs and actions. Or put another way: as long as Snowden criticizes the transgressions as he sees them of Russia, isn't this what credibility requires?

Frankly, yes. I think Socrates' letter to Crito[1] explains why participating in a society means we embody some of that society's values.

If you are truly a hardliner when it comes to non-interventionism, continuing to live and take advantage of the United States' infrastructure and quality of life (which is what it is due to said policies) makes your position suspect. Kind of like eating meat while preaching vegetarianism.

[1] http://www.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/crito.pdf

Re: Edward Snowden’s Long, Strange Journey to Hollywood

#14

Post by tanderson92 »

dvt wrote: post #9
tanderson92 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To me, mens rea is the entirety of the act of treason. Otherwise, many citizens' individual actions hurt US interests vs our "enemies".

That aside, that I still don't see how that implies it is loaded.

(by the way, I never objected to people believing he should serve jail time as the GP suggested; my comment concerned the certainty that he was a traitor)

Re: Edward Snowden’s Long, Strange Journey to Hollywood

#15

Post by strictnein »

tanderson92 wrote: post #4

It'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…

He just celebrated his 30th birthday at the Russian consulate in Hong Kong, and then hung out there for a couple of days until they brought him to the airport for his flight to Moscow, but he's totes on the up-and-up and a hero.

Re: Edward Snowden’s Long, Strange Journey to Hollywood

#16

Post by Trill-I-Am »

dvt wrote: post #7
eli wrote: post #5

Earlier 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.

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.

There are no free nations on earth from which you can damage the ability of the NSA to operate

Re: Edward Snowden’s Long, Strange Journey to Hollywood

#17

Post by dvt »

tanderson92 wrote: post #14
dvt wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To me, mens rea is the entirety of the act of treason. Otherwise, many citizens' individual actions hurt US interests vs our "enemies". That aside, that I still don't see how that implies it is loaded. (by the way, I never objected to people believing he should serve jail time as the GP suggested; my comment concerned the certainty that he was a traitor)

Maybe I misunderstood, but my point is that "treason" is a loaded term because we're not really sure if what he did was treasonous or not. As mentioned, treason needs an "intent to aid enemies" which we're not sure if Snowden had -- experts go back and forth on this.

So people just say "treason" to be inflammatory. He definitely broke the law and should probably be in jail, but treason is another ballgame altogether.

Re: Edward Snowden’s Long, Strange Journey to Hollywood

#18

Post by colordrops »

eli wrote: post #5
tanderson92 wrote: post #4

It'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.

What about the unquestionable traitors at the NSA? Why is all the focus on Snowden?

Re: Edward Snowden’s Long, Strange Journey to Hollywood

#19

Post by ethanhunt_ »

The NYT is doing hit pieces on wikileaks and friends, and this is part of that (the previous one was: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/europe/wikileaks-jul...).

The NYT operates in coordination with the U.S. government (c.f. DNC email leaks that show them coordinating a Bernie article with the DNC). It is helpful to consider them as the U.S.'s own state owned media (c.f. Chomsky), and these its press releases. Read them, but be skeptical.

Their likely is something very big coming from wikileaks in the next few weeks. The political elites in Washington have been working hard to discredit wikileaks.

Re: Edward Snowden’s Long, Strange Journey to Hollywood

#20

Post by tanderson92 »

dvt wrote: post #12
tanderson92 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose I believe in non-interventionism. Does my continued stay in the US and participation in its imperalism-based economy mean any efforts of mine for justice are suspect? My point being that there are larger forces guiding our lives than our individual beliefs and actions. Or put another way: as long as Snowden criticizes the transgressions as he sees them of Russia, isn't this what credibility requires?

Frankly, yes. I think Socrates' letter to Crito[1] explains why participating in a society means we embody some of that society's values. If you are truly a hardliner when it comes to non-interventionism, continuing to live and take advantage of the United States' infrastructure and quality of life (which is what it is due to said policies) makes your position suspect. Kind of like eating meat while preaching vegetar…

Socrates has his logic, I grant you. Socrates died shortly thereafter. Snowden, on the other hand, is still relatively free to shape the public debate and further the fight for Freedom. Who is wiser, who is more strategic? I'm not dissing Socrates here, for what it's worth: I only mean that there is no contract we sign with strict logical adherence when born into an unjust society.

I'm also not sure I agree that living in a country means you morally take responsibility for all its ills. I would characterize the responsibility for ills to be those that one is aware of and accepts because of the perceived personal benefit. The point of political opposition is to reject the current order of society.

Post reply on HN