omnibus PRISM/NSA/free Edward Snowden/encryption tutorial thread

good post, and not just for the david simon stuff

https://blog.pinboard.in/2013/06/persuading_david_simon/

― caek, Monday, June 17, 2013 7:54 AM (Yesterday)

^^ booming post

Can we retire the use of "traitor," too? I mean, are we at war with China? Pretty sure we're not.

i think you mean "red china"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGv2wqJJmbc

you don't have to be at war w/ a country for someone to commit treason on their behalf

i don't think it's a particularly broad reading to say that snowden violated the espionage act

P. sure there's a constitutional and legal definition of "treason" to which "violating the espionage act" doesn't even come close.

For everyone's edification though just in case.

Also: John Marshall and treason.

If only Charlie Rose had done research and then asked Obama good follow-up questions.

Charlie Rose is basically Bob Schieffer, right?

Here is a Wikipedia list of all persons (all four of them!) convicted of spying on the US for China. None were charged with or convicted of treason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Americans_convicted_of_spying_for_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

Treason is, like, an actual *thing*, not a word to be thrown about lightly. We haven't convicted anyone of treason in the US for more than half a century. We didn't even charge the Rosenbergs or Alger Hiss with treason, let alone convict them.

well it's easier to convict people for other things so they don't get charged w/ treason in the first place

treason isn't an actual 'thing' anymore than manslaughter is

It has a degree of specificity regarding what your actions are intended to accomplish that "espionage" does not.

actually, treason is both a law and a common term

anyone is within their right to judge an act as treasonous even if it isn't strictly legally so by united states standards

So is "rape" but I advise against its usage in casual conversation. xp

that's a good example. plenty of rapists are not convicted as such by the united states legal system.

and I advise you telling someone they weren't raped if the dude wasn't charged legally xp

against

u guys think there'll be Snowden Halloween costumes?

Was Jonathan Pollard a traitor?

I'm going as his gf xp

yes, duh xp

xxp I also advise against describing people convicted of or charged with sex offenses that don't rise to the level of rape as "rapists." If a dude whips his dick out on the subway and waves it at you, he may be guilty of sexual battery or another charge, but he's not a rapist.

xp he was? So Israel is an enemy of ours now, is it?

lotsa hardcore patriots on ILX all of a sudden, whippin' out treason charges left and right

obviously my position is that supplying classified state secrets to anyone is treasonous, not just countries we are at war with.

except when they are legit whistleblowing. i'd say the NSA disclosure wasn't treasonous. the G-20 leak was.

blowing the whistle...of treason

I think even questioning whether it was treason is sorta treasonous

To anyone? Even to, say, a US journalist?

hardcore patriots? dude told russia + turkey that we were spying on them. there was no reason to disclose that information except to undermine the US espionage program. i don't think you have to be a hardcore patriot to find that treasonous.

If Russia's and Turkey's real, not-for-PR-purposes reaction to this news was anything but a sarcastic "No shit," I'll eat my hat.

oh okay bc they weren't surprised then it's totes cool

i guess i'm just not enough of an free information radical. but to answer your other question - if someone leaked the names of undercover agents to a US newspaper, I'd consider that treasonous. whether that rises to the level where the government would (or should) prosecute them under a treason statute is an entirely other thing.

anyone is within their right to judge an act as treasonous even if it isn't strictly legally so by united states standards

― Mordy , Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:36 AM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

can't hear you, you're backtracking too fast

i mean come on dude

it's not treason unless they were working on behalf of a foreign power

not that it really matters, i guess. though treason proper is a capital crime and i don't think violating the espionage statue(s) is

it's a loose term. lots of countries define it differently. we happen to have a very strict definition of the term in the united states (plus an espionage act that covers a lot of what other countries might call treason). i don't think i need to not use the term bc of this legal coincidence.

ethel + julius were charged under violating espionage act no?

uhh well w/o checking wiki i think they were found guilty of DUN DUN DUN treason

for instance in canada: (2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada... (b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

i don't think so, checking wiki DUN DUN DUN "Charge(s) Conspiracy to commit espionage"

oh okay bc they weren't surprised then it's totes cool

just like why 'Murrican ADULTS know that the guvmint can watch and hear everything we do and it's childish to object, duh

the Supreme Court has spoken on this iirc - merely providing aid and comfort to the enemy isn't treasonous unless you're actually working for them. but it's mordy-treasonous, fair enough. when you use a word that has a specific legal meaning any way you want, not everyone is gonna roll with that

you're speaking as though once a word has a particular legal definition in a particular country that's the end of the conversation about it. do i need to make up a new word that describes someone betraying their country's trust by leaking confidential information that undermines its security -- but that isn't treason as defined by the supreme court? fine. i guess mordy-treasonous will have to do.

The question now to be decided has been argued in a manner worthy of its importance, and with an earnestness evincing the strong conviction felt by the counsel on each side that the law is with them. A degree of eloquence seldom displayed on any occasion has embellished a solidity of argument and a depth of research by which the court has been greatly aided in forming the opinion it is about to deliver. The testimony adduced on the part of the United States to prove the overt act laid in the indictment having shown, and the attorney for the United States having admitted, that the prisoner was not present when that act, whatever may be its character, was committed, and there being no reason to doubt but that he was at a great distance, and in a different state, it is objected to the testimony offered on the part of the United States to connect him with those who committed the overt act, that such testimony is totally irrelevant, and must, therefore, be rejected. The arguments in support of this motion respect in part the merits of the case as it may be supposed to stand independent of the pleadings, and in part as exhibited by the pleadings.

On the first division of the subject two points are made:

1st. That, conformably to the constitution of the United States, no man can be convicted of treason who was not present when the war was levied.

2d. That if this construction be erroneous, no testimony can be received to charge one man with the overt acts of others until those overt acts as laid in the indictment be proved to the satisfaction of the court.

"When I use a word,' Humpty Mordy said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Mordy, "which is to be master— that's all."