bradley manning

[MarkCO]

...not everyone who leaks negative things about the .gov is a traitor...

Everyone who leaks classified information is a traitor, there is no gray area! However, all negative information may or may not be classified.

[hatidua]

Everyone who leaks classified information is a traitor, there is no gray area!

In that case, some traitors do the nation a great service.

[MarkCO]

In that case, some traitors do the nation a great service.

And I agree with you on that point as well.

[gos]

In that case, some traitors do the nation a great service.

As conflicted as this sounds, I agree with it.

I don't believe a government should need to keep secrets from its people. I do believe a people has every right to keep secrets from its government.

Violating a nation's laws because it's "right" doesn't really matter, it's still breaking the law, and those who do it should be held accountable for their actions. It is then up to the people to change the laws they don't agree with.

--gos

[lowspeed_highdrag]

Everyone who leaks classified information is a traitor, there is no gray area! However, all negative information may or may not be classified.

Are you serious?

[MarkCO]

Are you serious?

Yes, there are laws against releasing classified information. Those laws are necessary and you have either broken them or you have not. The mess we find ourselves in as a country is because there are no absolutes. Everything is open to interpretation and "considering the situation", values clarification hogwash. You are either obeying the laws, or you are not. Breaking a law for the right reason is still breaking the law.

Our court systems were set up with the concept that there is a conviction AND a penalty phase. The penalty phase is where the sentencing can utilize discretion. However, our legal system has sunken to the point where the charging and trial phase are using "intent" discretion where it was never intended to be. Take a law history class and it is easy to see that where we are is nowhere close to the original intent of the US justice system.

Can I conceive of a situation where breaking a law, and taking the risk of being sentenced as a traitor might be beneficial, even preferable? Sure. But that is a different discussion.

[Ronin13]

Yes, there are laws against releasing classified information. Those laws are necessary and you have either broken them or you have not. The mess we find ourselves in as a country is because there are no absolutes. Everything is open to interpretation and "considering the situation", values clarification hogwash. You are either obeying the laws, or you are not. Breaking a law for the right reason is still breaking the law.

Our court systems were set up with the concept that there is a conviction AND a penalty phase. The penalty phase is where the sentencing can utilize discretion. However, our legal system has sunken to the point where the charging and trial phase are using "intent" discretion where it was never intended to be. Take a law history class and it is easy to see that where we are is nowhere close to the original intent of the US justice system.

Can I conceive of a situation where breaking a law, and taking the risk of being sentenced as a traitor might be beneficial, even preferable? Sure. But that is a different discussion.

When/if an AWB with no grandfather clause goes into effect, you'll just turn your guns in then, right?
Even if a law is unconstitutional, because it's a law we have to follow it, right? Even if there's a law against releasing classified information, blowing the whistle on unconstitutional practices can't happen if those practices are protected by putting "Secret" on the top of all of the evidence... So to follow the law you have to break the law... I don't see what Mr. Snowden did as being much of a choice- the law was protecting potentially unconstitutional practices, then if found to actually be in violation of the constitution, Mr. Snowden had to break the law to expose the violations. That deserves nothing less than an acquittal.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I don't see what Mr. Snowden did as being much of a choice- the law was protecting potentially unconstitutional practices, then if found to actually be in violation of the constitution, Mr. Snowden had to break the law to expose the violations. That deserves nothing less than an acquittal.

Actually, Snowden had plenty of choices. He could have raised the issue to the NSA IG, the DNI IG, or to his elected representative. He chose to expose a classified program in a way that is rife with mischaracterization and exploitation by people who want to damage the country. What he did is far from exposing the Clinton Administration placing a sweetheart deal for Tyson in their negotiations with Russia or China (diplomatic negotiation points are typically classified before the talks).

[Ronin13]

Actually, Snowden had plenty of choices. He could have raised the issue to the NSA IG, the DNI IG, or to his elected representative. He chose to expose a classified program in a way that is rife with mischaracterization and exploitation by people who want to damage the country. What he did is far from exposing the Clinton Administration placing a sweetheart deal for Tyson in their negotiations with Russia or China (diplomatic negotiation points are typically classified before the talks).

Actually we had this issue once in the Army... When you don't trust your Chain of Command (or fear that going to the IG could result in you getting in trouble) where do you turn. Maybe he feared this would be reported, then swept under the rug and/or he would be demoted or worse for having reported it. Many reasons to go the route he did... mainly, so it would get out, I assume.

[MarkCO]

Actually we had this issue once in the Army... When you don't trust your Chain of Command (or fear that going to the IG could result in you getting in trouble) where do you turn. Maybe he feared this would be reported, then swept under the rug and/or he would be demoted or worse for having reported it. Many reasons to go the route he did... mainly, so it would get out, I assume.

Your Federal elected officials have a liaison office that will help you.