Do you agree with John Boehner that Edward Snowden is a traitor?

[Nye Bevan]

WASHINGTON – The House speaker, John A. Boehner, offered harsh criticism of the man who leaked classified information on the government’s Internet and telephone monitoring programs, and gave his strongest defense of the surveillance efforts on Tuesday.

“He’s a traitor,” Mr. Boehner said in an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Tuesday. He added: “The disclosure of this information puts Americans at risk. It shows our adversaries what our capabilities are. And it’s a giant violation of the law.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/boehner-calls-snowden-a-traitor/

29 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, I agree with John Boehner. Edward Snowden is a traitor.
	8 (28%)
	No, I disagree with John Boehner. Edward Snowden is not a traitor.
	21 (72%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[truebluegreen]

1. Don't agree with DiFi either

and would really like to thank her for trying to deflect criticism of her "oversight" by running her mouth.

[stevenleser]

2. I think being a traitor requires mens rea. I think Snowden thought he was doing the right thing.

Last edited Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:54 AM - Edit history (1)

But he was ignorant of caselaw in this area.

He uncovered nothing that was illegal or unconstitutional or that is new. He damaged US National security and may very well not result in any positive changes.

[sabrina 1]

11. Looks like so far, more people view him as a hero. Republicans like Clapper, a war profiteer doesn't

because the average American is now learning about the War Profiteering Private 'Security' firms that are actually running all of our wars. Eg, I just found out that Clapper is a former employee of Booz Allen. That old revolving door again, he goes through it straight into being Director if Intelligence. He's already been caught in a lie, I hope he is fired for lying to Congress. That is a serious offense. But we are supposed to 'trust' a war-profiteering Republican not have a huge conflict of interest in a position where he has access to information that is very interesting to a Big 'Security' Contractor like his former Employer, Booz Allen, friends of Bush/Cheney and with a not stellar record of ethics.

This is why we need Whistle Blowers, so the rest of learn about these things. I never heard of this Corp until yesterday and from what I've learned from my own research, I am shocked that our 'security', personal information is now in the hands of these people.

What we need now, assuming we care about this country, is a complete investigation of these 'security' firms, who works for them, what influence they have over our governments decisions to go to war, how many of them have gone from profiteering, to Government positions where they can learn info that is beneficial to profiteers and whether any of the info was ever used to get laws passed to benefit these Private Corps.

I am very grateful to people like Snowden for risking his own safety and freedom to do what Congress should have done, and I know people like Ron Wyden and Udal and a few others did try to warn us, inform the American people about the influences of these war profiteers on our most serious decisions, whether we go to war, whether we spy on the American people, or not.

[stevenleser]

12. A majority of People once thought the world was flat, absent objective facts otherwise.

The facts here do not suggest he is a hero. Once those facts are better known, assuming no new information comes out, the prevailing opinion of him will change.

[sabrina 1]

13. Far more relevant to this story, a majority of people once thought Daniel Ellsberg was a traitor.

Your opinion is simply that, I know a lot more about who is running this government today, than I knew yesterday. And so do a whole lot of other people. I'm for transparency in government, we do not need secret governments.

I guess it all depends on how you view this country, and as Snowden himself said, the people should have the information, and if they decide that they want a secretive government that collects their personal information to be used 'later', then that would be their choice. But they should have the information to make that choice.

I sure do not want Clapper and his war profiteers even having my name. But they do and we did not know that.

I like Democracy. I like our Constitution. I never trusted Bush and his war profiteers, I thought we were getting rid of them. Now we know that nothing has changed regarding the influence they have over our government.

Why is Clapper a part of this administration? Can you explain that? Why is Ron Wyden eg, not Director of Intelligence?

[stevenleser]

15. The Fact is, FISA has repeatedy been found to be Constitutional. If you like the Constitution

and the Constitution was your motivator, you would have no issue with what was done here. If you like the fourth amendment, and are a fan of requiring a warrant for searches and surveillance, you would be a particular fan of FISA.

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/nat-sec/duggan.htm

Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 912-14 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1144, 71 L. Ed. 2d 296, 102 S. Ct. 1004 (1982); United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871, 875 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 890, 54 L. Ed. 2d 175, 98 S. Ct. 263 (1977); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593, 605 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 881, 42 L. Ed. 2d 121, 95 S. Ct. 147 (1974); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960, 39 L. Ed. 2d 575, 94 S. Ct. 1490 (1974); but see Zweibon v. Mitchell, 170 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 516 F.2d 594, 633-651 (D.C. Cir. 1975), (dictum), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944, 48 L. Ed. 2d 187, 96 S. Ct. 1685 (1976). The Supreme Court specifically declined to address this issue in United States v. United States District Court [Keith, J.], 407 U.S. 297, 308, 321-22, 32 L. Ed. 2d 752, 92 S. Ct. 2125 (1972) (hereinafter referred to as " Keith &quot , but it had made clear that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment may change when differing governmental interests are at stake, see Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967), and it observed in Keith that the governmental interests presented in national security investigations differ substantially from those presented in traditional criminal investigations. 407 U.S. at 321-324.

Snowden uncovered no crimes, nothing unconstitutional and nothing new.

[sabrina 1]

22. Lots of laws have been found to be 'constitutional' our history is replete with them. Thankfully

most are no longer laws. This is and always was a BAD law, unconstitutional, our constitution says nothing about 'secret courts' etc. It will be changed, it may take time, but it has to start somewhere..

I don't have the faith in the 'law' you have. If everyone did, African Americans would still be unable to vote, women would be unable to vote.

This law will go, and the more people understand it, the sooner that will happen.

[stevenleser]

31. This is not a law. This is the Constitution. If you are talking about FISA, do you understand the

consequences of repealing it? It would legalize warrantless wiretapping in national security surveillance situations.

The Presidents rights and obligations with regards to national security are not 'law' they are Constitutional rights and obligations. You need a constitutional amendment to change that.

[sabrina 1]

33. Do you understand that the 4th Amendment forbids warrantless invasions of people's lives.

The 4th Amendment also requires that probable cause be established before any warrant is issued. It also requires that the warrant be obtained BEFORE the invasion happens, not after.

The current FISA Bill with the amendment which was added to get Bush off the hook for breaking the original version of it, which wasn't great to begin with, is even worse.

What probable cause was presented to collect the telephone data of millions of Americans? In what court would a prosecutor succeed in getting a blanket warrant to seize the data of millions of people and how was probable cause for each of those people established?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That's pretty clear. Probably cause supported by oath. When and how was this probable cause established for that many people?

These are the questions that need to be answered. If they have done nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide and should be able to explain what the probable cause (which means 'there is reason to believe there was some kind of wrong-doing on the part of anyone who is the target of a warrant) was that resulted in a warrant for millions of people. Unless the whole country is guilty or suspected of being guilty of something, this whole FISA mass warrant claim is nonsense.

[stevenleser]

35. Do you understand that judges interpret what the Constitution means and they do not agree with you

and not just one decision. Every time and there are dozens of decisions.

Just like you can try to throw the first amendment at police and prosecutors if you yell fire in a crowded theater. They will promptly tell you that there are limitations to the first amendment.

Appeals courts have repeatedly ruled that the President's rights and obligations in terms of national security surveillance aimed at foreign espionage and terrorism are an exception to the 4th amendment's warrant requirements.

You can write as many responses to me as you want. You cannot get around that. As it stands, like any situations where the courts of the land rule that the Constitution does not mean what you want it to mean, you need a Constitutional amendment to change that.

[sabrina 1]

41. Show me 'several decisions' that involved a ruling against probable cause (other than the exception

when a perp is caught actually committing a crime) being established, or a case won when those steps were skipped?? There are tons of cases where even people who were obviously guilty, had their cases thrown out because the police gathered evidence without a warrant. If the 4th Amendment was not the law of the land, many unfortunate people would be hauled off to jail, charged with crimes they may or may not have committed and probably found guilty. Thank the gods for the 4th Amendment.

But how very sad it is to see people dismiss these checks and balances that were set up so thoughtfully to try to create a fair system of justice, where law enforcement and governments would at least be checked by some means to ensure we did not devolve into a totalitarian state. So far, despite attempts to undermine by would be dictators, they have served this country well.

I will be on the side of every person who respects the law of the land and doesn't attempt, as Bush and his cohorts did, to twist and distort those laws to free them up to commit the war crimes they committed. The FFs anticipated such people one day grabbing the reins of power which is why they wrote the Constitution in the first place.

Of course if you would prefer no law, and we are on our way there considering that we do not prosecute War Criminals or Wall St. criminals, then I won't expect to see you fighting along with those who have been doing so all along.

It's a bad period we are going through, as other countries have in the past, a dark period where criminals managed to get into power for a while, but I have faith it won't last for ever, not as long as we have people like Ellsberg and Snowden and Drake, willing to expose the crimes at great cost to themselves. I have noticed they are increasing in number as the criminals grow bolder, and that is a good thing.

What probable cause was there for Verizon and the NSA to track people's phone records?? The people will be asking to see it along with millions of others before long.

And why did Clapper lie about it?? Because he knows they are doing wrong.

[stevenleser]

47. Sabrina, trying to pretend a completely different situation's legal rulings apply doesn't work.

I point you again to my post #15 above.

[sabrina 1]

54. I point you again to the 4th Amendment, that is all we need to know. Our representatives take an

to 'defend and protect the Constitution of the US'. When they remain silent, when they vote for a bill that is totally contradicts the law of the land, they have betrayed that oath. And when that happens, sooner or later those laws get thrown on the trash heap of history, labeled 'one more attempt to undermine this democracy destroyed'.

I asked what probable cause was established to get a warrant to spy on millions of people. We need to know this now. Because without that very important legal requirement for a warrant, there is no warrant. Unless of course you do not recognize the US Constitution as the law of the land.

Thankfully and finally, at last, these egregious violations of our rights are going to be challenged where they belong, in a PUBLIC court. Enough with the 'secret courts' that is not the way of democracy.

You cannot tell me how they got a warrant against millions of people because you just don't know. And THAT is what is wrong about these ridiculous pieces of paper that have passed for laws over the past several years.

The very fact that Private for-profit Corporations have our rights in their hands is simply unacceptable. I hope this whole thing results in a PUBLIC debate about whether we want to continue to 'trust' people we did not elect with our rights, or whether we want to restore the rule of law where war criminals and Wall St. criminals do not get a 'get out of jail free' card.

You may be happy that Cheney and Bush were never properly investigated for the horrific crime of starting wars that cost so many lives based on LIES. But to most people I know, all over the political spectrum it is a sore that will not heal and a stain on this country.

If we are to survive as a democracy respected around the world, with some kind of moral authority, we must return to the rule of law.

The past decade this country has become a lawless place with Corporations writing our 'laws'. It is simply and totally unacceptable, something btw, everyone here agreed on when Bush was in the WH.

[arely staircase]

20. ellsberg faced the music and didn't seek refuge in a totalitarian state, bragging on said

totalitarian state's freedoms.

Ellsberg was a hero

Snowden not so much, regardless of what Ellsberg says.

[riqster]

30. Agreed on all points.

Snowden may or may not be a traitor, but he is clearly not an angel.

[sabrina 1]

34. Ellsberg completely disagrees with you. He sent a message to Snowden thanking him for his courage

and stating that 'we have been waiting for him for 40 years'. Ellsberg is a hero, his word is worth something, so I will go with Ellsberg on this. Also we actually had a semblance of a free press at that time. That no longer exists in the US and the WOT has made the Big Contractors for whom it is being 'fought' very nervous about the people finding out what they are up to and getting angry enough to stop the billions of dollars they receive in funding.

[arely staircase]

53. that is why I sad - "regardless of what ellsberg says"

snowden should be as honorable as Ellsberg was and have his day in court.

[sabrina 1]

57. Snowden has stated clearly that he knew the consequences of his actions. What court would he have

his day in in the current climate of lawlessness where War Criminals receive medals and honest, ethical citizens who see wrong doing and report it, are prosecuted? People like Drake, eg. Why was he prosecuted?

Snowden knows the smear machine will be out in full force tainting any jury he might face. The minute he is detained he will have no voice, he has seen it happen now so many times over the past number of years. He is absolutely correct to remain free as long as he can so HE gets to speak rather than the Private Corporate shills who are behind all of this and their puppets and former employees like our current Director of Intelligence ( that old revolving door again and the huge conflicts of interest now exposed as it should be) who someone manage to get into powerful positions in our government and who just lied to Congress. There will be no consequences for him though, because the law does NOT apply to everyone.

I trust Ellsberg's judgement on this. And Wyden's warnings are now understandable to us. His hands were tied, but he tried. And I trust Wyden on matters of Civil Liberties over any of the shills I've been hearing since this all began, like Rep. Peter 'we count the votes' King, or Ari Fleischer. When they are on your side, you KNOW you are on the wrong side.

[arely staircase]

59. but he is unwilling to face the consequences of his actions, unlike ellsberg

nt

[sabrina 1]

61. The only consequences he should face is a public, not secret, investigation into whether or not

what he has revealed is the truth. In a democracy it is the criminals who face consequences. But since Bush began the Great War on Terror, criminals, war criminals and Wall St criminals have been given medals of honor and billions of dollars to help pay their gambling debts.

There is no rule of law in this country when the Corporate rulers are exposed. We know the end result before it even begins. So anyone who is courageous enough to tell the truth about them has no chance of anything resembling a fair trial. Unless you've been asleep over the past decade or so, you know this.

See Guantanamo Bay, where hundreds of people were tortured, detained and accused only to have been released without charge after years of wrongful detention and that's only the tip of the lawless iceberg we've been witnessing.

Would YOU turn yourself in to a country that has a reputation for disappearing and or torturing people? I remember reading about many people from other nations seeking asylum in other countries, some of them here. Were they 'refusing to face the consequences' of their actions? Airc, we view them as heroes.

It's time for people to start realizing what the Bush administration has done to this country. There will never be a fair trial for anyone who exposes wrong doing here, not until we re-establish the rule of law. And so long as we refuse to even investigate War Crimes here, people who have the guts to expose violations of the Constitution, have the same right to protect themselves as anyone from any country where the situation has deteriorated as badly as it has here.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

44. The world is flat

At least according to that idiot Tom Friedman.

[dgibby]

17. The fact that Booz Allen is owned by The Carlyle Group

is enough for me. Looks like the Bush Family is still in charge of the government. No wonder Obama decided to "look forward".

[tridim]

3. I think he is being used by traitors.

Also known as the GOP.

[sabrina 1]

8. I think Bush and his 'security' Corps, are traitors. I am glad we have courageous people like this

to expose them. Clapper eg, what is he doing in this administration? Didn't we elect Democrats to get rid of Republicans? Clapper is a liar, I don't know if he is a traitor or not, but we do know he is a War Profiteer, making money from spying on the American people among other things.

It's odd how people will defend these war criminals and those who had the guts to expose them, traitors. This is something new around here. We used to be able to distinguish between the liars and war profiteers and the good guys.

Snowden, from what we know now, is one of the good guys who just exposed a bunch of Bush war profiteers and as Ellsberg said, someone we have been waiting for, for 40 years.

[ProSense]

4. Senators Feinstein and Nelson called it "treason."

<...>

California’s Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein — chair of the Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence — declined to go into specifics but said US authorities were vigorously pursuing Snowden.

“All the departments are proceeding, I think, aggressively,” Feinstein told US media, describing Snowden’s actions as “treason.”

<...>

Florida’s Democratic Senator, Bill Nelson, said Snowden should be prosecuted for treason.

“This is not a whistleblower, I think this is an act of treason,” he said. “This is deliberately taking highly, highly, super-compartmented classified information, and giving it directly out. He ought to be prosecuted under the law.”

- more

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/10/senator-u-s-authorities-are-vigorously-pursuing-edward-snowden/

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. Some Dare Call it Treason

I hope they can define the word.

Goldwater couldn't.

Neither could McCarthy.

[sabrina 1]

10. Well, all war profiteers will view those who expose them as 'traitors'. But to whom?

I'm all for having the Bush for- profit, private 'security' Corporations, for whom all these wars are being 'fought' betrayed.

[tarheelsunc]

6. According to my understanding as of now...

he did the right thing, but he's technically a traitor at the same time. He can't really be called a whistleblower, because he didn't report a violation of the law. As unfortunate as it may be, this IS the law.

[ForeignandDomestic]

7. Tssk..

Last edited Tue Jun 11, 2013, 12:37 PM - Edit history (1)

More traitorous than people who lied and took us to war?

Was Feinstein words as firm when Bush lied as they are now?

No one ever said the Military Industrial Complex bird didn't have two wings.....

[Autumn]

9. I would never, in a hundred lifetimes agree with that son of bitch on anything.

If he says the sky is blue, I'm going to fucking disagree with him.

[hobbit709]

14. Boehner is a traitor as far as I care.

[Javaman]

16. Can't vote, because usually in situations like this, the truth is someplace in the middle. nt

[GoCubsGo]

18. Yup.

Not to mention that all the facts are not yet in...

[Ohio Joe]

19. I have not decided yet...

People seem to be lining up on exactly one side or the other pretty quickly and I do not have enough information yet to go one way or the other. I do know that there are a number of disturbing things on both sides.

[arely staircase]

21. not in the strict legal sense

in the common usage/vernacular, perhaps. and he probably broke some serious laws.

[AlinPA]

23. Saw Fox 'news" at the gym and they had the opposite view, calling Snowden a hero.

If a republican were president it would be the other way around.

[ForeignandDomestic]

24. Tssk..

Welcome to the False left-right paradigm where the only winners are the Military Industrial Corporatocracy.

[SomethingFishy]

25. +1..

I keep saying the debate here should not be whether or not this is legal but whether or not it works. Since we all know it doesn't work they have to frame the debate another way so the money can keep flowing...

[ForgoTheConsequence]

26. A lot of John Boehner and Lindsey Graham supporters here lately.

Very interesting.

[LittleBlue]

27. Nice to see 30% of DU siding with Boehner

[SidDithers]

28. Well, the other 70% is siding with StormFront, who thinks he's a hero...

and is pushing a "Free Snowden!!" petition.

So playing the association game is kinda stupid in this case.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

37. How do you know what Stormfront is doing? No one here gives a shit about

a bunch of racist lunatics and would not give them a click to their site if they were paid to do so.

So Democrat Ron Wyden and Udall among other great Democrats who have been warning about these violations of the constitution for a long time, are now 'on the side of Stromfrotn'??

Disgusting to see this here, people who follow Stormfront now?

Then compare a majority of DUers to a disgusting bunch of racist morons??? Let me help you here. A majority of DUers do not support Neocon Republicans like Ari Fleischer, Boehner, Peter King or any other moronic far Right Winger.

My father always told me to consider the source, it was the best advice anyone ever gave me.

[stevenleser]

39. Appeals to bandwagon (Elsberg) and guilt by association (Stormfront) are two sides of the same coin

Either your position stands on the merits or it doesn't.

There are horrible people on both sides of this issue and great people on both sides of this issue.

[sabrina 1]

42. Ellsberg is a respected hero in this country. There was no need to appeal to him. His words have

meaning and since he took the trouble to make a public statement about Snowden Democrats especially were likely to hear about it.

Stormfront otoh, is just not on the radar of the average Democrat, Republicans maybe, but no Democrat I know could even find their website and I intend to keep it that way.

I will be quoting Ellsberg often as this case evolves since I have the utmost respect for that man.

You really are getting desperate to associate yourself with one of the lowest moments here on DU. I don't know any 'horrible people' on my side. I don't associate with horrible people. Speak for yourself please.

[stevenleser]

46. Appeals to bandwagon and appeals to authority are logical fallacies for good reasons the same way

guilt by association is.

You can pick the worst person in history and try to tar someone by saying they agree with that person somehow, that doesn't make them wrong. Conversely, saying Gandhi or Mandela agrees with you about something doesn't make you magically right.

If you're argument doesn't work, saying Elsberg or Gandhi or Mandela or whoever else agrees with you doesn't help.

[sabrina 1]

58. Well of course if that was the case, you might have a point. The fact is that Ellsberg agrees with

me since my opinion was formed before I knew Ellsberg agreed with me, and I am happy to have my opinion confirmed by someone of his standing which is only natural.

Conversely, if I found out that Ari Fleischer eg, or Rep Peter 'we count the votes' King agreed with me, I would rethink my position.

The latter is the position you find yourself in, they agree with you.

Ellsberg agrees with me.

[SidDithers]

40. ROFL. This coming from the poster who tells us what the goons at Conservative Cave are posting...

over and over and over.


Remember that time when you used StormFront as a source? Or maybe it was the Washington Times.

Don't ask me for proof. "I remember it well, that's good enough for me."

Sid

[sabrina 1]

43. Aw, you're so lovable when you try to play 'gotcha' and fail. But practice makes perfect and who

knows, one day you might learn that to play a good game of 'gotcha' requires not having to try so hard, because sticking to facts, makes it easy.

[SidDithers]

48. Yeah, you tell yourself that, sabrina...

if it makes you feel better about your Washington Times fail.

You're so cute when you get all hypocritical.

Sid

[bobduca]

56. And yet you play

[Life Long Dem]

29. No. I don't agree with traitor

I prefer the word spy.

[UTUSN]

32. Yes, but agreeing with BONER has nothing to do with my opinion. nt

[backscatter712]

36. This is the stupidest fucking piece of shit of a poll I've seen in my life! n/t

[one_voice]

38. I don't think he's a traitor...

or a hero.

It's far too soon to be making such proclamations. There's more to this story, I'll wait to hear the WHOLE thing before I crown him a hero or throw him in jail as a traitor.

[reformist2]

45. This is one of those cat/buttered toast trick questions!

[sabrina 1]

60. It's a simple question. I probably would have included Ari Fleischer and Peter King

who also think Snowden is a traitor. People need to know whose side they are on. Just knowing that that trio think Snowden is a traitor for exposing their cozy little profiteering games over the past several years, tells me I am on the right side of this issue.

[BlueCheese]

49. Good news-- Mitch McConnell also thinks Snowden should be prosecuted.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57588784/mcconnell-on-nsa-leaker-i-hope-he-is-prosecuted/

[limpyhobbler]

50. He's a hero who loves America more than any politician that approves of mass surveillance. nt

[Fire Walk With Me]

51. Boehner is a corporatist, pushing legislation which benefits things in which he has $$$ investments.

Boehner is a traitor. Snowden is a whistle-blower, a hero.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this administration." ~Obama

Even if whistle-blowers are the ones providing the transparency.

[AsahinaKimi]

52. I really don't know

Enough about this to make a honest statement other than, I really don't know. I guess I have some homework to do.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. Traitor? In the same way that Daniel Ellsberg is? Or, Ronald Ridenhour?

I think not.

[arely staircase]

62. just changed my vote to yes to reflect snowden's sharing of info w/chinese

nt