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

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."

I just don't get what the purpose is of running around calling people "traitor?" Like, let's discuss the pros/cons/effects of what an individual did and what it means in terms of international relations and security and our relationship to the Constitution and whatever. What does adding "treason" to the discussion constantly actually accomplish? Aside from getting to say "I'm a good American unlike that TRAITOR."

sure! i'm just saying that when conservatives call it treason, they're sort of calling for the govt to charge the person with that

blowing the whistle...of treason

― iatee, Tuesday, June 18, 2013 2:45 PM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

loll

the NSA FISA disclosures were technically legal but that doesn't mean that they weren't a violation against the american public. since when did the exact legality of actions determine the moral force of them? or is it only when it's convenient to arguing a point?

i should say, not the disclosures, but the actions about which were disclosed

i haven't made a moral judgment during this argument!

that's my point. if i defended wiretapping on the basis of its legality you'd say the legality is irrelevant. i'm saying that the exact definition by the constitution of the term 'treason' is irrelevant to determining is snowden betrayed his country.

if*

you don't even have to grant snowden's libertarian premises too much to see that being on the run from the USG and betraying the nation in toto are different things

I think there are TREMENDOUS implied moral differences among, say, "unauthorized disclosure," "espionage" and "treason."

i consider the G-20 leak a betrayal of his nation. obviously reasonable people can disagree.

yes, i agree. that's why i used the term 'treason.' bc of the moral force of the term. xp

why are there tremendous implied moral differences among 'espionage' and 'treason'

what if the country that you are treasoning with is actually of a higher moral character

i'm ready to admit that he or the G20 leaker broke laws (though maybe i'd want to see some laws changed), but that none of his offenses constituted treason

the g-20 spying was done by the british, how does that follow?

oh right i forgot he was the g20 leaker too

what if you betray your family business to another business that is more ethical? humans have long recognized that betraying your family/community/nation has inherent ethical problems, not just problems of inherent moral judgement.

xxp British + NSA both afaict

maybe i'm just less of a nationalist than confused-Marxist mordy

can we talk about how hilarious it is that one of the examples they are using to show that this program is working is that it averted an attack on the NYSE

why am i a confused-marxist? i don't feel confused.

about hyphen use?

yeah i should say complicated marxist, your understanding of marxism is def superior to mine tbf it just confuses me at times (tho i generally like it)

NYSE, the Sacred Seat of the American state

alfred otm ban me

i'm not even sure it's relevant here. i don't know about any radical free information principle in traditional marxism.