Edward Snowden's Father Gives Interview: My Son Is Not A Traitor

http://www.today.com/news/edward-snowdens-father-my-son-not-traitor-6C10480514

by rpm4321 • 13 years ago

78 32 13 years ago

today.com

fatjokes• 13 years ago

"My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star!"

I know, I know: this isn't Reddit, but I couldn't resist.

josephagoss• 13 years ago

I think at this point in time we can assume the Government gets the right to define what is a traitor and what is not a traitor.

Thus, if the Government says Snowden is a traitor then Snowdon is a traitor. I don't think Snowden is a traitor but the Government gets the final say.

Different Governments might have different definitions of what would be a traitor but any sufficiently powerful Government can turn anyone into a traitor if they want to.

EDIT: I don't think this is right, but thats the way they work.

mrchucklepants• 13 years ago

That leads to some unnerving scenarios.

will_brown3• 13 years ago

Perhaps a little more complex...The legislature should get to define a traitor (the criminal laws anyway); the legal authorities should get to arrest and charge the suspect (then again under the Constitution police powers were reserved for the State, but we say that Constitutional protection whittle away years ago, and now people accept the Federal police powers without question); finally the court should ensure due process and fair trial to every defendant.

However, like you elude, when the Executive creates a war on terror complete with special powers to identify individuals and non-state organizations as enemy combatants without any standards or review process, which in turn allows the government to circumvent due process to the point of allowing targeting kill lists and indefinite detentions without any due process or review there is a problem. In fact there is a word for people in power who centralize power and circumvent law and judicial review under the notion of necessity or "nation security"...well anyway we can all be thankful for terms limits (so long as terms limits are not circumvented under the notion of necessity...kind of like Bloomberg in NY)

dragonwriter• 13 years ago

under the Constitution police powers were reserved for the State

No, they weren't. There is no such provision anywhere in the Constitution. The states are sometimes described as being different than the federal government under the federal Constitution because the former have general police powers while the latter has limited powers, but the key distinction there is "general" vs. "limited"; both have police powers.

gyardley5• 13 years ago

The government most certainly can define what's considered 'treason' in the criminal code and then prosecute accordingly, so I understand where you're coming from. But words can and do have meanings independent of any one entity's attempt to define them, and sometimes it's possible to successfully challenge and change these definitions. For example, consider all the contention in American society around the definition of 'marriage'. The official government definition was not accepted by many, and because of the efforts of those people, the official government definition is changing.

wl• 13 years ago

Actually, no. The definition of treason is fixed in the Constitution. Congress can only define the penalties.

"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."

tropicalmug• 13 years ago

This story is not relevant to the privacy issues at hand. This is distracting from the conversation we should be having.

grandalf• 13 years ago

I don't fully agree. The article mentions that Snowden has offered to come back to the US if Holder agrees not to detain him before trial. Certainly a very important piece of news.

adaml_6232• 13 years ago

I disagree with you. Snowden coming back to the US for trial is irrelevant to questions about the actions of the NSA and the behaviour of your government.

jccc• 13 years ago

Snowden said he has told Attorney General Eric Holder through his lawyer that his son will probably return home if the Justice Department promises not to detain him before a trial nor subject him to a gag order.

Lonnie Snowden has not spoken to his son since April, but he fears that Edward may be manipulated by WikiLeaks handlers and would like to get in touch with him.

"[...] probably [...]"

"[...] has not spoken to his son since April [...]"

uptown• 13 years ago

NO. It doesn't.

The article mentions what his father has said. It says nothing about what Edward Snowden has offered.

adaml_6232• 13 years ago

There is an important point in there though.

You are not your government. It's possible to love your country while not accepting that the actions and authority of your government are correct.

Edward Snowden obviously loves his country and the people of it.

smokeyj4• 13 years ago

Edward Snowden obviously loves his country and the people of it.

I think Snowden's actions demonstrate a motivation more virtuous than preserving nationalistic ideals. His acted in the name of humanity! It wasn't just about American's 4th amendment, but the privacy of the people of the world.

It's possible to love your country while not accepting that the actions and authority of your government

What is a country but the actions of it's government? A country without a government is just.. people?

sigzero• 13 years ago

The Government does not want him for being treasonous. The Government wants him for espionage.

Zikes• 13 years ago

If espionage is acquiring information to give to the enemy, and Snowden is wanted for giving information to the American people, does that mean that the Government thinks that the American people are the enemy?

Kylekramer• 13 years ago

I know this is a Ron Paul line, but the logic doesn't clearly follow. Snowden isn't "wanted for giving information to the American people". He didn't only release information to American citizens.

Of course, it is impossible to leak classified information publicly and not leak it to the "enemy", but this particular platitude bugs me. There are many reasons to be upset with the government right now, but the charges against Snowden don't imply the government thinks citizens are the enemy.

revscat• 13 years ago

The simple answer to the question is "yes".

The follow-up question is "why"? The evidence seems to be pointing towards the conclusion that there is such vast institutional corruption in place that they are protecting themselves, through intelligence gathering and militarized police forces, from any threat posed from the general population. Intelligence gathering allows them to keep tabs on any movements which threaten or expose them, e.g. Occupy, WikiLeaks, Snowden. They can then coordinate with law enforcement to disable and neutralize them, and the media is used to discredit them.

jusben1369• 13 years ago

What a gloriously ignorant or deliberately disingenuous statement. Snowden is wanted for stealing state secrets. That = espionage. If a Chinese agent got caught for doing the same thing he'd be charged with espionage. Espionage has everything to do with the getting not the distributing. If you catch the person leaving the building, meaning the information was never shared at all, you can't go "Oh rats, can't charge him with espionage!" But that doesn't help when we want to do clever word smithing like the above.

For the record treason is a judgement on whether you used the information you stole (espionage) to harm your country. It's actually very telling that he's not charged with treason. The government is saying (today) they don't believe he did set out to hurt his country by simply charging him with stealing state secrets and chosing not to charge him for trying to damage his country with his actions after stealing them.

coin• 13 years ago

Yet another mobile device hostile site

Edward Snowden's Father Gives Interview: My Son Is Not A Traitor

Related Stories